Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ABERDEEN SHOEMAKERS INCORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

CITY OF GLASGOW DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

ATHOLL INVESTMENTS (ABERDEEN DEVELOPMENT) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Mr. Secretary Millan presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Atholl Investments (Aberdeen Development); and the same was read the first time; and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday next and to be printed. [Bill 9.]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Lorries (Attributable Costs)

Mr. Tom McMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects heavy lorries to meet in full the costs attributed to them.

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will bring forward proposals to ensure that heavy lorries meet in full the costs attributed to them.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. William Rodgers): The great majority of lorries—some 87 per cent.—already meet their attributable road costs in full. It remains Government policy that all should do so, but I cannot anticipate future Budgets.

Mr. McMillan: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but does he still hold to his intention, expressed in the White Paper, that the British Rail freight deficit should be eliminated this year? Does not he agree that that is unfair to British Rail? Will he consider withdrawing that directive until the lorry costs are ready to be implemented?

Mr. Rodgers: I would like to help my hon. Friend in this matter because I share his wish to see as much freight carried by rail as possible. But I must remain committed to what I said in the White Paper. Freight should pay its way, and we shall be working towards ensuring that all lorries do so—as many of them do already.

Mr. Dalyell: Precisely how does my right hon. Friend intend to ensure that the social and environmental costs of lorries should be met through taxation?

Mr. Rodgers: The commitment is to acknowledge that not only does the building of roads bear directly on the Exchequer but that environmental considerations are involved. That is set out clearly in the first chapter of the White Paper.

Mr. Fry: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that any increase in the costs of running large lorries will be transferred at once to transport costs, and then on to the consumer, so that there will


be no net overall gain? The right hon. Gentleman says that many commercial vehicles already run at a profit. Does he appreciate that if heavy lorries are specially penalised the result will be many more smaller vehicles, which will probably cause as much damage to our road system?

Mr. Rodgers: No one is suggesting—certainly I am not—that heavy lorries should be penalised. The argument is only about whether heavy lorries should pay their share of attributable costs. I think that both the public and the House will answer "Yes".

Mr. Robin F. Cook: Can my right hon. Friend give the latest figure for the extent to which lorries of over 30 cwt—long-distance haulage lorries—fail to meet their full attributable road costs? Does that figure not include environmental costs, accident costs and pollution costs caused by such lorries?

Mr. Rodgers: There is a significant deficit between the revenue earned from such lorries and the attributable costs, which do not include environmental costs, but the gap has been narrowed because lorries have been making somewhat shorter journeys. But I think that the House as a whole is agreed that lorries should pay their attributable costs, whatever some hon. Members may think.

Mr. Norman Fowler: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that both road and rail should pay full direct costs and be able to operate without subsidy? Does he also agree that, rather than suffering a continuing barrage of criticism, our road haulage industry deserves credit as one of the most competitive industries in Britain?

Mr. Rodgers: I have said before, and I repeat, that freight should pay its way and that there should be an element of choice in this respect. I do not think that the road haulage industry is as battered as it likes to believe. It has been successful in expanding and has made a very important contribution to our economy.

A21 (Tonbridge-Hastings)

Mr. Warren: asked the Minister of Transport if he will consider the need to rebuild the A21 trunk road as a dual carriageway from Tonbridge to Hastings.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Horam): No, Sir; our approach is to improve the route by providing bypasses, such as those for Pembury, Hurst Green and Robertsbridge, which we announced recently.

Mr. Warren: Bearing in mind that in 1974 the Government doubled the minimum qualification for trunk roads to give dual carriageways 17,000 vehicles a day, will the Minister himself bear in mind that there has been an enormous growth in the South-East of England, especially on the A21, of long-vehicle and juggernaut traffic, which has made the 17,000 vehicles qualification irrelevant and far greater than warranted by the roads?

Mr. Horam: It is true that the figure was increased to 17,000 in 1974, but it still does not mean that this road meets the requirements. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants this road improved as fast as possible. If we can do it in small pieces by means of bypassing these attractive villages, we can probably do something quicker than by going for a whole new route.

Mr. Wells: Is the Minister aware that Kent has more goods vehicle traffic passing through it than any other county and that north-south routes, especially this one, are probably the most lacking in improvement of any in the country? What is more, Kent is the most densely populated county. Will the hon. Gentleman do something for our road programme, because we are starved of cash for roads, especially in the north-south direction?

Mr. Horam: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. We are conscious of Kent's problems with heavy lorries and juggernauts and we are conscious also that it has not had its fair share of road spending in the past. That is why we are anxious to improve these roads as quickly as possible.

M42

Mr. MacFarquhar: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on plans for the M42.

Mr. Horam: I hope that early in the new year we shall be in a position to publish the remaining orders for the Bromsgrove section and the revised proposals for the Kingsbury and Polesworth sub-sections, to announce a decision on


the subsidiary orders for the Water Orton sub-section and to consult the public on alternative routes for the Castle Donington section. This is subject to our current trunk road review.

Mr. MacFarquhar: I welcome that answer, but does my hon. Friend accept that there is considerable concern, on both sides of the argument about the M42, at the failure so far to reach any decision on the Castle Donington section? When making final decisions on the M42, will he undertake that apart from economic and trading considerations he will bear in mind suggestions for bypass routes, which could curtail considerably the money required for a full M42?

Mr. Horam: Yes, indeed. If my hon. Friend heard my replies to the previous Question he will realise that this is the very point that I had in mind. If we are to bring any relief to some of our villages, it is important to get ahead with bypasses. These quite often bring improvement faster than would a wholly new route.

Mr. Hal Miller: Will the hon. Gentleman turn his attention to the other end of the M42? Does he think that there is a greater need for the construction of the Bromsgrove section than for the widening of the dual-lane M5? Can he give any indication when we shall be able to discuss such matters? When will he issue a White Paper on the Government's motorway strategy?

Mr. Horam: We are at the moment reviewing the trunk road programme, and we shall bring our proposals to the House in the shape of a White Paper, as was indicated in the White Paper on transport policy, as soon as possible. I do not think that that will be too long. As regards the priorities between the M5 and these proposals, I still think that these deserve higher priority. These are for a new route rather than for improving an existing road.

Mr. Grocott: Is my hon. Friend aware of the crucial importance to Tamworth and its residents of the Tamworth section of the M42? In view of the town's tremendous housing record in providing overspill housing for the West Midlands conurbation, is not it time that it had the road structure that it requires?

Mr. Horam: I agree entirely. The growth of Tamworth has been especially impressive, since it has not had some of the advantages of other growth areas and the road planning has lagged behind. I hope that at a meeting later today I shall be able to give more encouraging news.

Mr. MacKay: Is the Minister aware that the majority of residents in the Midlands would be dismayed if vast sums were spent on building this motorway in these difficult times instead of merely having certain bypasses?

Mr. Horam: Our priority is to get value for money within a restricted road programme. I am sure that our proposals will meet those criteria.

National Bus Company

Sir A. Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next intends to meet the Chairman of the National Bus Company.

Mr. Tim Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet representatives of the National Bus Company.

Mr. William Rodgers: Next week.

Sir A. Meyer: When the right hon. Gentleman meets the chairman, will he urge upon him the desirability of persuading the constituent companies of the National Bus Company to follow the example of British Rail and provide cheap off-peak fares, especially for old-age pensioners, since the present level of fares discourages the use of buses, especially in rural areas?

Mr. Rodgers: I shall draw the chairman's attention to what the hon. Gentleman said. I am sure that it is the chairman's wish to raise the standards of all the companies within the National Bus Company to the standards of the best and to bear in mind exactly considerations of the kind mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Dempsey: Will my right hon. Friend draw the chairman's attention to the most unsatisfactory condition of many buses upon which the public are expected to travel? Will my right hon. Friend also direct this gentleman's attention to the large number of buses lying unused because of the shortage of spare parts


and ask him to take immediate and effective action to tackle the problem?

Mr. Rodgers: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing these matters to my attention. I shall convey them to the chairman. My hon. Friend may like to give me some details of specific examples of what he has in mind so that they may be examined more carefully.

Steel Coil

Mr. John Ellis: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is satisfied with the present road safety position in regard to vehicles engaged in transporting steel coil.

Mr. Horam: Regulations already exist which require safe loading, and in addition the Department has published a Code of Practice on the Safety of Loads on Vehicles which contains detailed advice on methods of constraining a wide range of loads, including steel coils.
I believe that these arrangements are satisfactory but am always prepared to listen to suggestions from hon. Members.

Mr. Ellis: Does my hon. Friend realise that the current practice, on flat-bedded lorries, of stacking coils in an upright position and putting blocks of wood each side is completely unsatisfactory? Will he consider introducing regulations so that a proper purpose-built cradle is utilised? Is my hon. Friend aware that the TGWU, of which I am a member, is extremely concerned about this? Has he any statistics to show what is happening to these loads on the road?

Mr. Horam: This is not a particularly serious cause of accidents. We believe that if people follow the instructions that we have laid down in regulations there should be no problem. However, I understand my hon. Friend's concern. I know that there have been one or two accidents recently in his area because of this, and I shall keep a careful watch on the position.

Mr. Temple-Morris: In addition to road safety for steel coils and everything else, may I ask the hon. Gentleman about the expenditure of county councils on road maintenance, which is decreasing constantly between 1973 and 1981? We are mortgaging our future—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a quite different matter from the Question on the Order Paper.

Supplementary Grant

Mr. Newton: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is satisfied with the working of the transport supplementary grant formula as it has affected Essex.

Mr. Horam: The formula treats all counties in the same way, including Essex. But my right hon. Friend is now considering whether any changes are needed for the 1978–79 grant settlement.

Mr. Newton: Is the Minister aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) and I were grateful for his helpful attitude on a specific problem recently but that this is no substitute for avoiding a situation in which the county of Essex got virtually no TSG this year? May we be assured that this will not be allowed to happen again?

Mr. Horam: I cannot give specific assurances about the level of TSG. Obviously it will vary considerably according to the spending of the local authority and the money available from central Government. I recognise that Essex was hard done by in the last round, and we hope to avoid that situation again.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the way that the shire counties are taking up the transport grant and that they are keen on maintaining public transport in rural areas? Would not it be dangerous to hand over to them the control of railway branch lines?

Mr. Horam: No. I am not satisfied with the way in which many shire counties, particularly Conservative-controlled ones, are feeding funds into the support of bus services. Rail services are an entirely different matter and it is not appropriate to comment on them on this Question.

Mr. Moate: Is it not wrong for the Government on the one hand to proclaim a belief in local decision-making on transport matters, yet on the other hand to threaten shire counties with economic blackmail if they cut public expenditure


in an endeavour to modernise local bus services in an efficient manner?

Mr. Horam: Nobody is threatening shire counties. All we want is a responsible attitude towards the provision of public transport, and we have taken measures to ensure that.

Motor Cyclists (Driving Instruction)

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he is making in his arrangements for the provision of driving instruction for motor cycle learner drivers in the United Kingdom and in particular in Leicester.

Mr. Horam: My right hon. Friend recently announced the launching of a new nation-wide motor cycle training scheme to be operated by STEP Management Services Limited in conjunction with local authorities. In addition, the Department gives financial assistance to the RAC training scheme, which now operates in more than 300 centres, including one in Leicester.

Mr. Janner: I congratulate the Minister and his Department on the safe rider scheme and emphasise the enormous importance of giving more information about future steps to be taken to reduce the terrible carnage on the roads. Is the Minister aware that this carnage has resulted in hundreds of motor cyclists and their pillion passengers being killed each year and thousands more being injured? What further help does he propose giving these people to ensure that they learn to drive safely, both for themselves and for other road users?

Mr. Horam: All sides of industry and riders themselves felt that the right way forward was in the provision of proper training facilities being on as wide a scale as possible. The STEP provisions that have been announced will fill a clear gap in this area, and we want to put maximum possible pressure behind them in the short term, as we believe that this is the right way forward.

British Railways

Mr. Sainsbury: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next proposes to meet the Chairman of British Railways.

Mr. Rost: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next intends

to meet the Chairman of the British Railways Board.

Mr. William Rodgers: I met him today and I hope to see him again soon.

Mr. Sainsbury: When he met the chairman today, did the Secretary of State ask him why commuters from Hove and Brighton should be expected to accept as reasonable a further large increase in their fares before they, the taxpayers generally, or the House have had an independent assessment of the efficiency of British Rail's operations and before they have been told how profitable are the particular lines on which they travel?

Mr. Rodgers: The simple answer to the hon. Member's question is "No" but he might not find that sufficient. I simply say to him and to rail travellers that in order to meet the costs of the railways we must either increase the fares in line with the increase in inflation or subsidise the railways to a much greater extent out of the general fund of taxation. The second possibility is not generally acceptable to the House, because of the greater public expenditure involved. The Chairman of British Rail is very concerned about the need to increase the efficiency of the railways and to make sure that commuters get value for money.

Mr. Rost: Why does not the Secretary of State take the Chairman of British Rail to do some train spotting? If he stands for a while alongside any main line station and watches the inter-city trains hurtling by he will see that most of them are less than half occupied. How can further extravagant fare increases help to get passengers back on to the railways, which are at present pricing themselves out of the market? The consumer is paying enough already for under-occupation and inefficiency.

Mr. Rodgers: The hon. Member's experience is somewhat different from mine. I have found to my delight that most inter-city trains are full, or nearly so. British Rail has shown a significant increase in the last year in the number of passengers carried. The logic of the hon. Member's question is that British Rail should reduce the number of services, and this is not generally acceptable to the public.

Mr. Dalyell: Can the Secretary of State offer possible help to the British Railways Board in providing restaurant and sleeping car facilities for Egyptian Railways?

Mr. Rodgers: Yes.

Mr. Henderson: I presume that the previous question had a West Lothian flavour. Can the Secretary of State give us any encouragement about the question of reopening lines where traffic appears to be becoming available? I refer specifically to traffic in northern Scotland, particularly in the Peterhead area, where very large loads that are taken by road could readily be taken by rail if a relatively small stretch of line were opened.

Mr. Rodgers: The chairman is anxious to increase the number of passengers and the amount of freight carried on the railways. If this involves reopening lines, he is prepared to do so. But he must be the judge of whether this makes the best sense in the circumstances. However, I shall draw his attention to what the hon. Member said.

Mr. Bowden: Is it fair to commuters in Brighton and Hove, who have had massive increases in their fares over the past few years, that they should have another increase—well in excess of the Government's pay norm—particularly when they are facing a situation in which they are called upon to subsidise large numbers of travellers in the Greater London area? Is that not a disgraceful position?

Mr. Rodgers: No, it is not disgraceful. The hon. Member should have a greater sense of perspective, allowing, of course, for his constituency obligations. Fares must increase, and British Rail has been very good in holding them down for a whole year. There is a degree of understanding on this matter, and it is inevitable that there must be a certain degree of cross-subsidisation.

National Freight Corporation

Mr. Viggers: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will announce his plans for the financial reorganisation of the National Freight Corporation; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he

expects to introduce legislation to change the financial structure of the National Freight Corporation.

Mr. Grist: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will announce his plans for the financial reorganisation of the National Freight Corporation; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Spriggs: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to introduce legislation to change the financial structure of the National Freight Corporation.

Mr. William Rodgers: I refer the hon. Members and my hon. Friends to the Written Answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Johnson) on Monday 14th November 1977.

Mr. Viggers: In connection with this financial reconstruction, has the Secretary of State seen Press reports today which claim that he is to take control of Freightliners away from the National Freight Corporation and give it to British Rail? The Press reports speculate that this is partly in order to appease the rail unions and the Labour Party conference. Is any of this true? If so, what regard has the Secretary of State paid to the customers' interests?

Mr. Rodgers: I do not think that I have ever appeased the Labour Party conference, for better or for ill. I have read the Press reports, but Ministers have made no decision on this matter yet.

Mr. Cook: Will the Secretary of State take note that he will not still demands for positive investment simply by transferring Freightliners to British Rail? Is he aware, however, that many of us would welcome such a transfer as a positive step and regard it as a return to British Railways of control of the market for services that they provide and for which they must bear the investment costs?

Mr. Rodgers: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his congratulations for a decision that I have not yet made.

Mr. Grist: In view of the fact that the Corporation operates in a competitive sector and may well become profitable, would it not be sensible, instead of arguing about a transfer between various


sections of the nationalised sector, to return the business to the private sector?

Mr. Rodgers: I welcome what I interpreted as the hon. Member's kind remarks about the National Freight Corporation, which is an efficient and very successful body. However, it does have its problems, which are well recognised by the House. These are concerned mainly with certain parts of the business inherited some years ago. My concern has always been that the National Freight Corporation should function efficiently without subsidy for its freight operations.

Mr. Spriggs: Does the Secretary of State agree that if he approves the transfer of the NFC to the management of the British Railways Board it will be a step in the right direction, towards an integrated transport policy?

Mr. Rodgers: I do not think that any proposal has been made for the transfer of the whole of the NFC. There are arguments for transferring Freightliners, which I acknowledge, but when Freightliners was placed with the NFC it was with a view to a successful intermodal operation. I pay tribute to Sir Dan Pettit and his board for the success that they have had in recent years.

Mr. Gow: Does the Minister recall that the Chairman of the National Freight Corporation, in the annual report two years ago, described the financial structure of the Corporation as being a bad practice, reminiscent of medieval usury?

Mr. Rodgers: Yes, I remember it well.

Mr. James Johnson: Will the Secretary of State be shocked to be told that the views of the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) coincide with my views and with the views of all Labour Members who have a Freightliner depot in their constituency? Will he also be shocked to know that all but a few of the employees to whom I have spoken in the West Hull depot believe that the accountancy of Freightliners is open to suspicion and inspection? Will he think again about hiving off this non-road sector of the NFC?

Mr. Rodgers: Yes, certainly. It is not an easy decision. Most of these decisions

are difficult to make, because one has to bear in mind the need for efficient operation, to provide employment and meet national needs. We shall bear in mind all that my hon. Friend said.

Mr. Moate: The-Minister will remember that the Labour Party conference rejected the Government's White Paper on transport. Will he, in turn, disregard the advice given to him by that conference about transferring Freightliners to British Rail? What steps has he taken to consult those very important people, the consumers and the users? How long will this appalling uncertainty continue?

Mr. Rodgers: I think debate has gone on too long, but for that reason everybody has had an opportunity to express a point of view. I would not dissent from the view that Ministers should make up their minds soon.

M27 (Hedge End-Chilworth)

Mr. David Price: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to announce his decision upon the recommendations of his inspector's report, following the public inquiry, into the whole question of the route and the junctions on the proposed section of the M27 between Hedge End and Chilworth.

Mr. Horam: My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Transport and the Environment will announce their decision as soon as possible, but full consideration of the inspector's report is likely to take some months. However, if it proves possible to make an earlier announcement about the alternative route, I have no doubt that my right hon. Friends will do so.

Mr. Price: I appreciate that the Secretary of State must fully consider the matter before announcing a full decision, but will he urgently announce the line and route, because that will set at rest the minds of my constituents and relieve many anxieties, and it will certainly be helpful?

Mr. Horam: The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. The consequences in respect of blight involving the two alternatives are still undecided. Therefore, I shall take account of the hon. Gentleman's comments.

Mr. Adley: Is the Minister aware that the completion of the M27 is urgently required, as is the completion of the M3? Will he confirm that he has received representations from the Hampshire County Council on the vital need to join up the two motorways and provide fast access from London to the port of Southampton?

Mr. Horam: I can confirm that I have received representations from the Hampshire County Council on this subject.

Stoke—Derby Link Road

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when the preferred route for the Stoke—Derby link road will be published.

Mr. Horam: It will take some time to deal with the whole 42 miles of the link. However, I hope to bring forward much more quickly proposals for dealing with the most urgent sections.

Mr. Knox: Does the Minister agree that the sooner the line of route from Derby to Stoke is settled and finished, the better it will be for everybody concerned, particularly for those of my constituents who have the misfortune to live on this road?

Mr. Horam: I shall consult my right hon. Friend on this matter.

Mr. MacFarquhar: Is my hon. Friend aware that his visit to my constituency to consult on this route was warmly received by those who met him? Is he able at this stage to comment on the proposals of the Derby-Stoke Action Group, which he met?

Mr. Horam: This road, as my hon. Friend knows, is given personal attention by my right hon. Friend and myself. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. The proposals of the DeSTAG will be examined with all the others, and will be commented upon later.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Have the proposals for the M64 been dropped?

Mr. Horam: I think the right hon. Gentleman is talking about the name of the proposals that proceded the present one. It was at one time called the M64 proposal between Stoke and Derby. It is now called the Derby-Stoke link. It has not been dropped. We are considering a road along various alternative lines within this corridor.

Mr. Lawrence: Is the Minister aware of the urgency of the Derby-Stoke link road, bearing in mind the fact that it might relieve some of the intolerable burden of traffic that thunders dangerously through Uttoxeter, and is he also aware that the citizens and industry of the area would prefer the speedy construction of the Uttoxeter bypass?

Mr. Horam: That was the whole point of our reconsidering the M64 proposal, as it was originally called—the present Stoke-Derby link. We are examining the matter with a view to providing relief as quickly as possible to those areas and villages which need it most pressingly. We are examining the scheme as a whole rather than the economic proposals originally conceived.

Railway Services

Mr. Ron Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Transport which organisations he has so far met in the course of his consultations on the White Paper proposals on local railway services; and when he expects to complete this process of consultation.

Mr. Cowans: asked the Secretary of State for Transport which organisations he has so far met in the course of his consultations on the White Paper proposals on local railway services; and when he expects to complete this process of consultation.

Mr. William Rodgers: I have not yet met any organisations, nor have I set a timetable for consultations.

Mr. Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these proposals have met with general hostility, not only from the Labour Party and the TUC but from the Tory-controlled county councils, which do not want to be saddled with the blame for unpopular decisions affecting local railway services? Will he now re-examine these proposals and, in his review, encourage the use of all forms of transport?

Mr. Rodgers: Yes. My hon. Friend is right to say that these proposals have not had an enthusiastic reception. They were one of the "green" parts of the White Paper and I hoped that they would encourage thoughtful and constructive discussion of the problems raised. I still


hope that that discussion will take place. There is no prospect of legislating on this matter in the immediate future.

Sir Bernard Braine: Has the Minister had any representations from commuter organisations, bearing in mind the continuing deterioration of commuter services in South Essex and the astonishing admission by British Rail that it can do nothing to improve them until the 1980s? Will the Minister invite commuter organisations in South-East Essex and Members of Parliament to see him in order to discuss this matter?

Mr. Rodgers: I generally find that invitations are not necessary for hon. Gentlemen, and, for that matter, members of the public, who invite themselves. I take the hon. Gentleman's point, which is valid. Many commuters are not particularly happy with the services that they enjoy. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, it is a different issue from the one involving a local option. One of the arguments for a local option is that it will enable people who live in the locality to decide how best they want public transport to be run.

Mr. Bagier: Does the Minister agree that the local option proposals are seen by many as passing the buck from the central body to local authorities? Does he not see the danger, since this is seen also as the thin end of the wedge or as decentralisation of the railway system? Does he further agree that if that takes place it will be disastrous to the industry?

Mr. Rodgers: My hon. Friend properly draws attention to some of the supposed disadvantages of the proposals. There are arguments both ways, but we must try to find a solution to the problem of those railway lines that cost large sums of money to maintain. It must be decided against the background of those railway lines, mainly to meet local needs, and also the view expressed in the House today that fares should not rise disproportionately to inflation.

Mr. Penhaligon: Will the Minister confirm that we have met and discussed these proposals, but that they have received little or no support?

Mr. Rodgers: I think that that is a fair rendering of the situation.

Beverley South-West Bypass

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the construction of the Beverley South-West Bypass.

Mr. Horam: Following the reopened public inquiry, my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Transport and for the Environment hope to announce their decision on the bypass early next week.

Mr. Wall: May I remind the Minister that the line of this route has been altered on a number of occasions and that that has caused great delay? Will he do his best to have the road constructed before the Humber Bridge opens, otherwise northbound traffic will overwhelm many villages in the area?

Mr. Horam: That is an important consideration, which I shall take into account.

Car Parking

Mr. Aitken: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received, following the publication of his proposals set out in the transport policy White Paper, Command Paper No. 6836, concerning plans to license and tax private car parking spaces in offices and factories in Central London; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. William Rodgers: The White Paper makes no parking proposals specific to London. There have been about 170 replies to the consultation paper on additional powers for local authorities to control off-street parking.

Mr. Aitken: Does the Minister realise that these misguided proposals have been savagely criticised in many quarters because they are rightly seen as nothing less than a spiteful attack on the motorist? How can it possibly be justified to burden individuals and companies with a new tax and the expensive new bureaucracy that would be needed to operate it? Will the Minister think again about this Socialist lunacy?

Mr. Rodgers: I am not quite clear whether the hon. Gentleman has read the White Paper and understands the proposals made in it and, particularly, whether he has read the consultation


document. We are proposing only that local authorities may like to have powers to enable them to decide whether they wish, in one way or another, to control off-street parking. I should have thought that it was a reasonable spread of democracy to give such powers to local authorities, which would be free to use them or otherwise.

Mr. McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are people, particularly hon. Members representing urban areas, who are in favour of these powers being given to local authorities but believe that they should be given to district councils in shire counties and not left in the hands of the shire counties, which use their position to strangle urban life in the cities? That has happened in Humberside, by the shire county refusing to develop lorry parks.

Mr. Rodgers: It is certainly clear that in many towns and cities there is a widespread view that parking should be subject to control, given only that local authorities should make the decisions and that they are subject to the normal democratic processes. However, each town and city is different, and it would be extremely foolish of me to lay down the law. Only certain powers would be given, but my hon. Friend was right in saying that these powers are more applicable to districts than to counties. Under the local government reorganization—for which the Labour Party was not responsible—many powers relating to traffic and transport have been given to the counties.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that in many cases the provision of car parking for offices has been a condition of planning consent being given by a local authority? Is not this a case of trying to change the rules after the game has been started?

Mr. Rodgers: I take that point, because I was a member of a planning committee in a metropolitan borough some years ago and I was insistent then that new office buildings should have car parking accommodation. However, we all have to learn from experience in handling traffic, and local authorities should be free—given the proper consultative process and all the safeguards upon which the House would insist—to have these powers at some stage.

Mr. Christopher Price: With reference to traffic congestion and parking troubles in Central London, has my right hon. Friend seen the GLC's plans for removing many bus lanes and reinstituting parking meters in a way that will inevitably make intolerable traffic congestion even worse? Have the Government powers to do anything about that?

Mr. Rodgers: I am very bothered by the proposals. I have read of them only in the newspapers, because, I regret to tell the House—although this is totally consistent with my view on local decisionmaking—this is the responsibility of the GLC, control of which changes hands from time to time, and changed in the wrong direction last May.

Mr. Norman Fowler: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the reply that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken)? Will he confirm that in the consultation document that he has issued, though not publicly, it is implicit in his plans that a new enforcement body of inspectors will check on motorists parked in private car parks in the areas designated? Is not the whole thing a hopeless over-reaction to the problem, and will he undertake to drop these absurd plans into the departmental wastepaper basket?

Mr. Rodgers: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. These proposals are worthy of consideration and have received a reception that was friendly from some and less friendly from others. I am sure that as the years go by the hon. Gentleman will find that an increasing number of local authorities will want to have the powers, whichever way they may choose to exercise them.

Pedestrian Crossings

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is holding any discussions to simplify the procedures for siting new pedestrian crossings.

Mr. Horam: Yes. We have discussed with local authority associations a proposal to withdraw the requirement for my right hon. Friend's approval of individual new pelican crossings on roads other than trunk roads. Their siting will then be determined by the local authority in the same way as zebra crossings.

Mr. Goodhart: Does the Minister appreciate that in the past it has often taken as long to develop and produce an airliner as to obtain approval for a pedestrian crossing on a main road? Will he make sure that in the new consultative procedure more weight is given to the views of local residents?

Mr. Horam: That is an extremely important point. I am conscious of the need not only to look at the statistics—which can sometimes conceal more than they reveal—but to consult public opinion and an hon. Member's constituents about a crossing. I hope that the change that we shall make will be consistent with what we are saying about local options and will lead to quicker results.

Mr. Noble: Does the Minister recall our correspondence about the need to site a pedestrian crossing outside Crawshaw-booth Junior School in my constituency? Does he agree with me that procedures that prohibit the siting of a pedestrian crossing on the busiest road in north-east Lancashire, where there is a steep gradient and where children cross, are entirely ridiculous?

Mr. Horam: I had thought that I should not be able to get away without my hon. Friend raising this problem, which he has brought to my attention on a number of occasions. It is because we want quickly to announce decisions on such matters that we are trying to get local authorities to make up their minds. I cannot go all the way to Lancashire for my hon. Friend, but I shall look into the matter.

Mr. Penhaligon: Is the Minister aware of the fact that the formula of cars per hour squared times people must amount to at least 100 million? Will he tell us where that formula came from, and upon what it is based?

Mr. Horam: I have no idea, and I am not sure that I entirely believe it.

M40

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce the route of the M40.

Mr. Horam: I am very conscious of the hon. Member's understandable concern about this, and I assure him that we shall reach a decision as soon as we possibly can.

Mr. Marten: Is the Minister aware that the high number of purely local Questions on the Order Paper, which are boring to those not involved, amounts to a criticism of his Department and its procrastinating attitude towards the development of road systems? Does he recall how many times he has told me that we shall hear very shortly about the route of the M40? Today he has not even said "very shortly". Is he aware that real trouble is caused in respect of such of my constituents as farmers who can make no firm plans and households that are being blighted? Does he realise that industrial development in Banbury cannot go ahead until he has let us know? Will he please do something and let us know quickly?

Mr. Horam: I am conscious of the danger of saying "very shortly". That is why I did not repeat it today. However, I am aware of the number of times that the hon. Gentleman has received that answer, indicating that a reply would be coming fairly soon, and am also aware that a reply has not yet appeared. I am conscious of the genuine problems of blight and other difficulties in his and adjacent areas that have been caused by our taking time over the decision. The matter is high in our consideration, and the hon. Gentleman can rest assured that we shall give it priority.

Mr. Jay: Before the Minister commits himself to an extravagant extension of the M40, will he study the Leach Committee's report on traffic forecasting? When will it be published? Will it be shortly?

Mr. Horam: We have only just received it. It will take a little time to consider, but will be published as soon as possible.

Mr. Hal Miller: As the M42 Bromsgrove section is to be renamed the M40, will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that its construction will not proceed in advance of the construction of the rest of the M40?

Mr. Horam: Our plans remain as we have stated. There is no change.

Bus and Lorry Drivers

Mr. Fry: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a


statement on the implementation of EEC regulations on drivers' hours.

Mr. Moate: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his negotiation in the EEC on drivers' hours and other related matters.

Mr. William Rodgers: I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bradley) on Friday 4th November.

Mr. Fry: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as a result of the recent agreement in Brussels, very short notice has been given regarding the imposition of the 450-km rule and that this will cause considerable problems for the road haulage industry, which will need to reschedule its journeys? Does he propose to do anything to recognise these difficulties? Can he confirm that the Government and not the bureaucrats in Brussels will be responsible for the timetable for phasing in the new drivers' hours regulations?

Mr. Rodgers: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says about the 450-km limit and the difficulties facing the industry. We should be happy to discuss any problems with the industry. Most people believe that we achieved considerable success in Brussels on this occasion in reaching agreement in principle to a three-year period of implementation, which was something that we were uncertain about achieving. Discussions are taking place with the Commission on the phasing of that implementation. The House would not wish me to say anything that might prejudice a satisfactory outcome.

Mr. Moate: The right hon. Gentleman's recent Written Answer disguised the fact that the 450-km limit would be coming in on 1st January and would not be subject to a three-year transitional period. Does not this undermine the transitional arrangements on drivers' hours, and is it not inconceivable that the industry could reorganise itself in the six or seven weeks before 1st January? Is it possible for enforcement to be deferred? Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that we shall have a debate on this critical issue?

Mr. Rodgers: I am sorry if my Written Answer disguised anything. That

was not my intention. I wished to summarise as briefly as I could the outcome of the discussions in Luxembourg that were regarded as successful. If the hon. Gentleman considers the matter carefully, he will find that the great bulk of the road haulage and bus industries are pleased. I have had letters and telegrams congratulating us on the outcome. If I can facilitate discussion in the House, I shall he happy to do so. I recognise that there will be problems for all parts of the industry from 1st January.

Mr. Gould: Does not our obligation to comply with the 450-km limit reduce considerably the value of the otherwise welcome concession that my right hon. Friend obtained on drivers' hours?

Mr. Rodgers: I do not think that the concession is, to use my hon. Friend's carefully formulated phrase, reduced considerably. It was never likely that we would achieve 100 per cent. success in the discussions, and until the meeting in Luxembourg it seemed possible that we would have to implement the provisions from 1st January without any staging at all. There has been a net gain.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: What costings has the right hon. Gentleman made of the effects of the legislation in rural areas? Is he aware of the concern of small contractors, particularly in the North and West of Scotland, who fear that they may be put out of business by the implementation of these rules? Is there to be any exemption for such small contractors or for the carriage of livestock?

Mr. Rodgers: Such exemptions do not arise, but the point that the hon. Lady makes about remote areas was very much in my mind and in the mind of the House in seeking to get a transitional period of phased implementation. I am rather surprised that our achievement has not received a more general welcome in the House.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Although I am normally an anti-harmonisationist, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he agrees that, in the interests of the implementation of EEC regulations and in the interests of safety, it would be advisable to make the use of tachographs compulsory?

Mr. Rodgers: There was an earlier Question on the Order Paper on that


subject, but the hon. Member who tabled it was not here. It raises much wider issues than are covered in this Question. All I can say is that I do not propose any change in the position that I have previously adopted.

Mr. Dykes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the recent halting of foreign drivers by police on motorways? Has he discussed this with the police, and does he draw any conclusions from it? Does he agree that, generally, the EEC is more stringent on hours while our vehicle safety regulations are more stringent than those in the rest of the Community? Could there not be a useful compromise in marrying these to get a package of controls for lorry drivers?

Mr. Rodgers: If the hon. Gentleman is asking whether we can learn from each other, the answer is "Yes". There are differences in enforcement, and our standards are rather higher than those in some other EEC countries. I should like to see high standards throughout the Community.

Laybys

Mr. Cronin: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take action to prevent laybys being used for long periods as dwelling places by itinerants.

Mr. Horam: Itinerants are not moved from trunk road laybys unless their presence creates safety problems or there is a suitable permanent site available to accommodate them.

Mr. Cronin: Will my hon. Friend give more serious consideration to this problem, because near Castle Donington in my constituency, for example, some laybys are in a revolting, filthy condition and some of the itinerants occupying them have markedly anti-social and sometimes criminal propensities? The problem requires careful consideration.

Mr. Horam: I shall certainly look carefully at what my hon. Friend has said, but we must be careful not to move people on if there are no suitable sites provided for them by the appropriate county council.

Mr. Temple-Morris: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a real problem, not least in the rural areas? Will he consult the Secretary of State for the Environment about action that should

be taken generally on this problem, and not least the implementation of the Cripps proposals?

Mr. Horam: I agree that action should be taken, but often the lack of action by county councils and the lack of provision of suitable sites mean that it is only right to allow people to stay where they are.

Mr. John Ellis: When my hon. Friend looks at these local matters, will he differentiate in his value judgment between local authorities which have spent money on providing suitable facilities for itinerants and those which have sat on their bottoms and done nothing?

Mr. Horam: There is a vast discrepancy between local authorities which have provided a number of sites and those which have provided none or the minimum required by law. I am aware of the problem.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: In order to clarify the position, can the hon. Gentleman explain the purpose of a layby?

Mr. Horam: As a matter of fact, the layby referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) is not a layby in the normal sense. It is a piece of road which has been superseded by a new road, and that is why the itinerants have been allowed to continue using it. Generally, I agree that where a layby performs its usual functions itinerants should not be allowed to stay there.

Bus Licensing Laws

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to reform the bus licensing laws; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Horam: My right hon. Friend's plans are fully set out in the White Paper on Transport Policy issued on 27th June and the consultation paper on bus licensing issued on 1st August, copies of which are available in the Library.

Mr. King: As the hon. Gentleman's Department drafted a clause in a Bill as long ago as 1973, has it not now had ample time to consider the matter and is it not time that we saw something in legislative form? Can the hon. Gentleman guarantee that when legislation


appears it will bring badly needed help to smaller enterprises in rural areas?

Mr. Horam: The hon. Gentleman should know that we already have legislation in the Experimental Areas Bill, which will be useful in this respect. Any further legislation that we may be able to bring forward this Session will add to the general reforming tradition of successive Labour Governments in this respect, which contrasts markedly with the inaction of successive Conservative Governments.

Mr. Norman Fowler: The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that last remark. If these plans are now so essential, why did the Labour Government in 1974 scrap the reforms to help rural transport that they inherited from the previous Conservative Government? Is it not clear that the Government have wasted four years in respect of rural transport? What they are now proposing is too little and too late.

Mr. Horam: We scrapped the Conservative proposals because they were wrong and would have destroyed many essential bus services. Anyone who considers the respective records of the various Governments over the years must conclude that Labour has made practical and sensible reforms, whereas the Conservatives have simply talked about ideology and have achieved nothing.

QUESTIONS TO THE PRIME MINISTER

Mr. Ridley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a matter of considerable importance on the transfer of Questions by the Prime Minister. I hope that you will bear with me for a minute or two, Mr. Speaker, because there are two substantive matters for you in what I have to say.
On 8th November I tabled a Question to the Prime Minister, for answer on 22nd November, which asked him why the Gracious Speech contained no proposals for rent derestriction of furnished houses. I did that because I had in my possession a Press Notice of the Daily Express headed:
Steel's Ten Commandments—my price or out you go.

One of the 10 commandments was that there should be housing grants for first-time buyers and a derestriction of furnished houses. It is a matter of considerable substance and importance that the Prime Minister should say why he is not meeting one of the conditions that the Liberal Party has made. He should be prepared to answer that Question.
My second point, which relates to the first, is that the Question was tabled on 8th November and I was informed yesterday after Question Time—15th November—that it had been transferred to the Secretary of State for the Environment.
I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the Select Committee on Procedure and its report for Session 1966–67, in which it states:
It has been constantly emphasised by the Chair that the transference of Questions is the responsibility of Ministers. But your Committee recommend that Ministers should as a general rule, not later than two sitting days after the appearance of a Question on the Notice Paper, inform the Member who has given notice of it of the fact that it is to be transferred and to which Minister.
The Select Committee in Session 1969–70 followed that up by stating:
Your Committee request the Leader of the House to acquaint Departments of the importance which they attach to notice of transfers being given within two sitting days"—
that is, of a Question being tabled.
It is clear to me, Mr. Speaker, that the officials who deal with Prime Minister's Questions regarded my important Question as a substantive one that the Prime Minister should deal with himself. However, at a later date, when the right hon. Gentleman realised the unpleasant implications of what I was seeking to question him about, he unilaterally decided to transfer it. That was done seven days after it had been tabled. I regard that as a matter that should be brought to the attention of the House. I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will provide for us a remedy against the abuse of the power of transfer, in terms of both substance and time, that is exemplified by this incident.

Mr. Speaker: I am aware of the Select Committee's recommendations, but the Committee in no way recommended that I should have control over the transfer of Questions by Ministers. The matters raised by the hon. Member for Cirencester


and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) are for the Prime Minister and not for me.

Later—

Mr. Tebbit: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), I am not sure whether the Prime Minister is making life rather confusing and difficult over Prime Minister's Questions or whether it is the rest of the House that is wrong in its approach to the Prime Minister, but certainly things are not working as they should. For example, the other day I found that a Question to the Prime Minister asking him to call a meeting of his Ministers had been transferred to another Minister, which raises some laughable thoughts about the way in which the Government are run.
In the previous Session this issue was referred to the Select Committee on Procedure. The Committee made a report, which obviously did not work out well in practice. It might not be a bad idea if we refer the matter again to the Select Committee on Procedure to see whether it can come up with a better answer—one that satisfies either the Prime Minister or the House, perhaps even both.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made a constructive suggestion that will have been heard by those responsible for the Committee.

WALES BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

Mr. Gow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise with you, Mr. Speaker, a matter that arises from a motion that stands in the name of the Prime Minister on today's Order Paper relating to the second motion that stands in the name of the Lord President of the Council. If the motion that is to be moved at 10 o'clock has any meaning, it is that the time allowed for the debate on the guillotine motion relating to the Wales Bill can proceed until any hour, whereas we are allowed only three hours

on the first motion relating to the Scotland Bill.
I remind you, Mr. Speaker, of the wording of Standing Order No. 44, which states:
If a motion be made by a Minister of the Crown providing for the allocation of time to any proceedings on a bill Mr. Speaker shall, not more than three hours after the commencement of the proceedings on such a motion, proceed to put any question necessary to dispose of those proceedings.
I underline the words
not more than three hours after the commencement of those proceedings.
However, under the terms of the motion that appears on the Order Paper we are permitted to debate the guillotine on the Wales Bill until any hour. Does not the motion that stands in the name of the Prime Minister conflict with Standing Order No. 44?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) has rightly drawn attention to Standing Order No. 44. In fact I am prepared because I thought that this question might be raised.
The 10 o'clock motion enables debate on the allocation of time motion to be proceeded with at any time after 10 o'clock to the extent that it has not already been disposed of by that hour. However, under Standing Order No. 44 I have a quite separate duty to put the Question on such a motion at the end of three hours after the proceedings commence. I wish to make it clear, therefore, that the business motion does not remove that duty from the Chair.
There was a similar occasion on 20th July 1976. There were three allocation of time motions on that day. The House will recall that a similar 10 o'clock motion was tabled. The proceedings on the first motion were completed at 7.28 p.m. The debate on the second motion comenced immediately. It was interrupted at 10 o'clock for the moving of the suspension motion. It was then resumed and continued until 10.28 p.m., when the proceedings were interrupted and brought to a conclusion. The third motion was similarly debated and brought to a conclusion after three hours.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 2nd DECEMBER

Members successful in the Ballot were:

Mr. Leo Abse.
Mr. Tam Dalyell.
Mr. John Watkinson.

Mr. Dalyell: On the date proposed, I hope to raise the question of kidney donors and the problems related to the shortage of kidneys in hospital.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (DEFINITION OF TREATIES)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.),
That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (No. 6) Order 1977 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Foot.]

Not less than 20 Members having risen in their places and signified their objection thereto, MR. SPEAKER declared that the Noes had it, pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before you put the Question I had intended to raise a point of

order concerning the procedure that has just been followed by my hon. Friends, which is to enable a debate to take place.
When the motion was put on the Order Paper yesterday there was a note attached to it to say that the treaties, concerning the relationship of the EEC with Greece and Turkey, had not been looked at by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. That being so, there was no opportunity for that Committee to draw to the attention of the House any unusual matter in relation to those treaties. Therefore, the House had not had a proper opportunity to decide whether a debate was required. I hope that in future the notification that appears on the remaining Orders of the Day might, for convenience and accuracy, be repeated on the effective Orders so that the House may make its judgment on the matter.

Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order.
An indication of the nature described by the hon. Gentleman is never placed under the notice of motion to refer a Statutory Instrument to a Standing Committee. Its proper place is beneath the notice of motion to approve the Instrument itself. Exactly the same was done in relation to No. 5 of this series, which was referred to a Standing Committee yesterday, as the hon. Gentleman will see if he examines the Order Paper.

SCOTLAND BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

3.43 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining Proceedings on the Scotland Bill:—

Allotted days for Committee, Report and Third Reading

1.—(1) The Proceedings in Committee on the Bill and the Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in seventeen allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Eleven o'clock on the last of those days.

(2) For the purposes of Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the Proceedings in Committee on the Bill and to the Proceedings on Consideration of the Bill such parts of those days as the resolutions of the Business Committee may determine.

Report of Business Committee

2.—(1) The Business Committee shall report to the House their resolution—

(a) as to the Proceedings in Committee on the Bill and as to the allocation of time between those Proceedings and the Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill not later than the 21st day of November 1977; and
(b) as to the Proceedings on Consideration of the Bill and as to the allocation of time between those Proceedings and Proceedings on Third Reading not later than the seventh day on which the House sits after the day on which the Proceedings in Committee on the Bill are concluded.

(2) The resolutions in any report made under Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) may be varied by a further report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (1) above and whether or not the resolutions have been agreed to by the House.

Proceedings on going into Committee

3. When the Order of the Day is read for the House to resolve itself into Committee on the Bill, Mr. Speaker shall leave the chair without putting any Question, notwithstanding that notice of an Instruction has been given.

Conclusion of Proceedings in Committee

4. On the conclusion of the Proceedings in Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Order of Consideration

5. No Motion shall be made to change the order in which the Bill is to be considered in Committee, or on Consideration but the resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in that order.

Dilatory motions

6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, Proceedings on the Bill shall be made on an allotted day except by a Member of the Government, and the Question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time on allotted days

7.—(1) On an allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the Proceedings on the Bill for one hour after Ten o'clock.

(2) Any period during which Proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the period under this paragraph.

(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the Proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the period during which Proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under this paragraph, and the bringing to a conclusion of any Proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall also be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on the Motion.

Private Business.

8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by the Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the Proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the Proceedings on the Bill or, if those Proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the completion of those Proceedings.

Conclusion of Proceedings

9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any Proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith proceed to put the following Questions (but no others), that is to say:

(a) the Question or Questions already proposed from the Chair, or necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a Second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(b) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any member, if that amendment


or Motion is moved by a Member of the Government;
(c) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;
and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings muter sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If, at Seven o'clock on an allotted day, any Proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time have not been concluded, any Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) which apart from this Order, would stand over to that time shall stand over until those Proceedings have been concluded.

(4) If a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over to Seven o'clock on an allotted day, or to any later time under sub-paragraph (3) above, the bringing to a conclusion of any Proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day at any hour falling after the beginning of the Proceedings on that Motion shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

10.—(1) The Proceedings on any Motion moved in the Horse by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph 9 above shall apply as if the Proceedings were Proceedings on the Bill on an allotted day.

(2) If on an allotted day on which any Proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee shall—

(a) prevent any Proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such Proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Re-committal

12.—(1) References in this Order to Proceedings on Consideration or Proceedings on Third Reading include references to Proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, re-committal.

(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

13. In this Order—
'allotted day' means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day, provided that a Motion for allotting time to the Proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day;
'Resolution of the Business Committee means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

I begin by reminding the House that it is the custom on some occasions for Leaders of the House when they move motions of this character first to give the House some facts and figures. I suspect—and I think that it is only right that the House should approach the matter in this way—that the more general arguments are likely to figure in our debate today. However, the facts and figures about the timetable and the hours and days that have already been provided enter into the argument, so I shall briefly give some of the statistics before seeking to elaborate upon them.

It would be wrong for anyone to suggest that we have been ungenerous in the amount of time that has been allocated—two days for Second Reading and a further 28 to Report and Third Reading, making 30 days in all, not counting time for the consideration of any suggestions that the House may receive from another place. I know that the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) referred to that aspect the other day. A period of 30 days for the two measures—this Bill and the Wales Bill—has very few precedents.

During the Second Reading debate on the Scotland and Wales Bill last Session my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister promised an allocation of about 30 days for all the stages in this House, which was in itself an exceptional offer. It allowed for more time for that Bill, leaving aside Finance Bills, than any had enjoyed since


the Government of India Bill over 40 years ago. We then had, following the introduction of the Bill in the last Session, four days debating the Bill on Second Reading and 10 days in Committee.

Earlier, we had had four days debating the basic concepts of directly elected Assemblies and a separate Scottish Executive, set out in our White Paper of November 1975. These basic ideas, which the House spent a good deal of time debating, are also features of the Scotland Bill and the Wales Bill to which the House has this week given Second Readings. Therefore, whatever else may be said about the arrangements that have been made, it is absurd for anyone to suggest that the time allocated for the general discussion of these matters in the House has been very small compared with what has been arranged on previous occasions, in previous precedents.

I shall come in a moment to the motion that the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) put down on these aspects of the matter. But when it is sometimes suggested outside that the House has been gagged on this issue, I must say that that is not the impression of most hon. Members who have been in the House. A great deal of time has been provided, quite rightly, and a great deal of further time is to be provided under this motion. Any suggestion that the House has been gagged would be an absurdity.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: My right hon. Friend mentioned the Government of India Act. I infer from what he said that that is a precedent for a timetable motion on a constitutional Bill. Will he tell the House whether that timetable motion was introduced before the Committee stage began? If it was not, is not my right hon. Friend's motion today of great procedural significance, this being the first time we have had such a motion?

Mr. Foot: There have been introduced into the House a number of major Bills, including constitutional Bills, on which the procedure we have followed in this instance, of the timetable motion being moved before the Committee stage, has been used. [HON. MEMBERS: "Such as?"] Hon. Members seem to be in a very impatient mood. I cannot under-

stand why. Perhaps they want to proceed even faster. I hope that we shall be able to satisfy them on all these matters.
Hon. Members ask for a precedent on a constitutional Bill of a Bill's being proposed for a timetable before the Committee stage. There was the Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill in the Session 1931–32. I presume that that was to be regarded as a constitutional Bill. There were many other important Bills, such as the Military Training Bill in 1938–39, which I am sure involved important questions.
Hon. Members are barking up the wrong tree on this subject. The question of constitutional Bills raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) is extremely important, but it is the fact that over a long period constitutional Bills have been subjected to motions for the timetable. There was the most important constitutional Bill of all, as I would claim, to be introduced into the House in modern times, the European Communities Bill. [Interruption.] I understand that the timetable motion was not moved before the Committee stage, but it was an extremely important constitutional Bill to which a guillotine was applied. [Interruption.] I shall come to most of these points if hon. Members will allow me to proceed. If I am thought not to cover them adequately, I shall follow the normal custom of giving way, and we shall see whether we can proceed even faster in that manner. It is wrong for anyone to give the impression—I am sure that my hon. Friend was not seeking to give such an impression—that it is unusual or improper in any sense for timetable motions to be applied to constitutional measures.
The Conservative Government applied a guillotine to the European Communities Bill—in very special circumstances. No doubt the then Government were acting on a precedent that they had set early in the days of guillotine operations. It was very soon after the establishment of the guillotine procedure that the guillotine was applied by the Conservative Government to the Members of Parliament (Charges and Allegations) Bill 1888, which I should think was a constitutional Bill.
The Liberal Government—we want fair shares for the Liberal Party in these


Matters—moved a guillotine on the Parliament Bill 1911 and on the Government of Ireland Bill 1914.
Labour Governments, as I have already mentioned, introduced timetable motions on the Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill 1931 and on the Scotland and Wales Bill in the last Session. That is two each to start with.
There are quite a number of other constitutional Bills to which timetable motions have been applied. In one sense—I say this in particular in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South—it is constitutional Bills for which guillotines are most required, particularly in Parliaments where there is a close margin between the two sides.
I do not believe that the House should proceed on the basis that the guillotine is strange to its procedures. Whether it is right in a particular instance is another matter. However, the House should not give the impression to anybody inside and, worse still, to anybody outside that there is something extraordinary, improper or contrary to our traditions in the application of timetable motions to constitutional Bills.

Sir John Langford-Holt: The suggestion that the more important a Bill is the more likely and more desirable it is that it should be subjected to a timetable motion comes ill from the right hon. Gentleman when it is recalled that for 30 years he said something quite different from below the Gangway. Is he aware that he is setting what is probably the most unhealthy precedent ever set by any Leader of the House?

Mr. Foot: I shall take the hon. Gentleman's comments one stage at a time. I assure him that I am not seeking to avoid any accusations that he may wish to make against me about what I said on the timetable motions on the European Communities Bill and other Bills. Indeed, if he wishes I shall come to it right away. I can satisfy him now, because I have come equipped with all the facts and figures.
It is the fact that I have spoken on a large number of timetable motions, that I have voted against a considerable number of timetable motions, and that I have voted for quite a number. However, that seems to have escaped the attention of

some Opposition Members who have not applied their minds to the figures.
If we are to take first the number of guillotine motions for which right hon. and hon. Members have voted, I should point out that the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) is a greater offender than I. The right hon. Gentleman, proportionate to his time in the House, has voted for more timetable motions than I have. If he cares to work out the figures—I am sure that my mathematics are correct—he will find that for every four for which I have voted he has voted for five.
The same comment applies to the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition, who sometimes becomes very passionate about these matters. I am not complaining about her absence today. However, if a great constitutional issue were at stake, she should be here, particularly in view of the accusations that she has made against me in the past.

Mr. Hector Monro: Where is the Prime Minister?

Mr. Foot: I am looking after the Prime Minister very well. There is no need for him to be here. He can attend to other business.
If it is a grievious crime to have voted frequently for timetable motions, the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire is a greater offender than I. That is the fact of the matter. If I am Saint-Just, he is Robespierre. Indeed, I think that he might have had the decency to bring along Madame Defarge, too, because she has an even worse record than the right hon. Gentleman in this respect, and that is saying something. Marginally, it is not so dramatically worse, but it is worse.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, if I may anticipate his defence against these accusations, that when timetable motions are properly to be introduced and whether it is right and advisable for the House to pass them are different questions which take account of the quality of the legislation and the kind of discussion which has taken place in the country. All these various factors enter into the matter. That is what I have said in all the debates on these matters in which I have taken part.
The hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) must have spent a


happy time reading all my speeches. Indeed, to read my speeches on guillotine motions is almost a liberal education in itself. However, as he has come to the House so well equipped, I am sure that there is no more information that he wants to extract from me on that subject.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: Perhaps the Leader of the House could help me. I thought that he referred to the Representation of the People Act 1931. I took the trouble to get the "Statutes Revised 1929–32" from the Library. It does not seem to contain the Representation of the People Act 1931.

Mr. Foot: It is the Representation of the People (No. 2) Act. The hon. Gentleman was probably looking for No. 1. We shall have to see whether we can sort out this momentous constitutional issue with which the hon. Gentleman has thought fit to waste the time of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "You raised it."] I raised it because there appeared to be some sceptical characters in the House who did not believe that there had been any previous constitutional issues.

Mr. Eric Moonman: Perhaps I may draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to something much closer home than the experiences of the last half-century. We are judging this guillotine motion before the beginning of the Committee stage and we have no guidance as to what we have done wrong which should merit disciplining our discussion on the matter. We have an account of what took place in the last 12 months. Indeed, this is the second guillotine motion that my right hon. Friend has moved on this issue. With hindsight, does he feel that the introduction of the first guillotine motion was due to filibustering by hon. Members? Will he clarify that point?

Mr. Foot: I shall clarify it in almost the same words as I used on that occasion. I made no accusation of filibustering when I introduced the previous timetable motion. I make no accusation of filibustering on this occasion, particularly as we have not reached the Committee stage. Filibustering is not the only reason for the introduction of a timetable motion. That is not the only issue at stake. It may be the issue on some Bills, but it is by no means the only issue.
I turn now to the hon. Member for Eastleigh, who has a motion on the Order Paper touching on these questions. I have naturally looked up his precedents, too, because he put down the motion.

Mr. George Cunningham: Cannot we stop these Front Bench games?

Mr. Foot: This is not a Front Bench game. There is a motion on the Order Paper suggesting that the precedents that we should have taken were the Government of Ireland Bills of 1886 and 1893 in view of the lengthy Second Reading that took place on those Bills, or the Government of Ireland Bill 1912 in view of the lengthy procedure that was allowed on Second Reading on that occasion.
As I have already indicated, the time arranged for discussion on the Scotland and Wales Bill was extremely wide in the last Session and what we have proposed in this timetable would also allow extensive time. I agree that since the 1880s or 1890s the time allocated for Second Readings has changed. The fashion has changed. I did not change the fashion.
If the hon. Member for Eastleigh wants to raise the question of the curtailment of debates on major constitutional issues by this type of motion he does not need to go back to 1886 and 1893. He could have gone back to 1972. In that year we had the European Communities Bill, whatever its virtues or vices, whatever attitude hon. Members might take in different parts of the House about its importance or significance.

Mr. Douglas Henderson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I draw your attention to the digital clocks, which appear to have stopped at 3.55. Does that mean that the debate could go on for ever? Does this effect the time that the debate will end?

Mr. Speaker: The clocks have stopped but my watch is working. I shall see that steps are taken to try to restore them.

Mr. Foot: I have no doubt that time will pass like a flash when certain hon. Members are speaking, even though the clocks have stopped.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh appears to have been worrying over the decades about the nature of the departure from


the principles operated and the time allocated as long ago as the 1880s and 1890s. He should have made his protest in 1972. He should have protested when a Bill was presented to us, whatever its vices or virtues, which impaired the supremacy of Parliament.
One or two hon. Members who signed the motion, if I understand their criticism, voted in that sense. For any hon. Member who voted for the timetable motion on the 1972 Act to accuse me of truncating debates without taking into account what happened in the 1880s and 1890s is an absurdity. This, motion clarifies what Disraeli said of the Conservative Party as a whole when he described it as an organised hypocrisy.

Mr. David Price: If the right hon. Gentleman is correct about what happened in 1972, he has perpetrated the same sin. His defence for giving only one day for the Second Reading on the Scotland Bill is to quote a precedent with which he disagreed. That is a peculiar position for him to be in. He could commend a guillotine on the Committee stage far better if he had allowed adequate debate on the Second Reading when the principles could be discussed.

Mr. Foot: I have already dealt with that. If the hon. Gentleman had taken sufficient factors into account before he put down the motion, he would have had a better chance of appealing to the House. He must take into account the time allowed for discussion in the last Session. That discussion does not determine the issue but if the House applies common sense, it must take that into account.
It is an absurdity for the hon. Member to cite an example of something that occurred decades ago when timetables were of a different nature and when allocations of time were operated in different instances. It is an absurdity for him not to take into account developments that have taken place since. I am sure that the House will regard it as an absurdity.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: I am sure that the House would want the Leader of the House to move from the nineteenth century to the somewhat unusual procedures for the present Bill and for him to tell the House more about those procedures.
In Clauses 81 and 82 there are provisions for the House to vote after Third Reading against the implementation of the Bill by order. May we have an assurance that, after we have had the referendum, when deciding whether to table a motion for the implementation of the Bill or for its repeal he will take into account the size of the vote in the referendum? That would ensure that the Bill did not come into effect after a derisory vote in the referendum.

Mr. Foot: This matter has already been discussed and will no doubt be discussed afresh in Committee. As I said in yesterday's discussion, of course I believe that it is right and proper that, when deciding how a referendum is to operate, the House should consider carefully how it is to be done and all the circumstances that surround it. That is of great importance, because the referendum, as a new institution introduced into our constitution, has great dangers. I do not deny that. Those dangers must be guarded against carefully. I am sure that when we discuss the allocation of time in the Business Committee that is one of the subjects to which attention must be given.
To answer my hon. Friend's particular point, I say that this will be debated when we come to it. We shall see what amendments are proposed and the House will consider the matter then.
In my opinion it is not sensible to write into the Bill a figure above or below which the referendum is supposed to count or not. It is more sensible to do what we have already proposed. The referendum should not be mandatory in the sense that it translates automatically into the operation of the measure itself. The House of Commons afterwards should have the chance to make up its own mind on the referendum. That is the sensible way to proceed and I believe that covers the question. It is by far the most healthy way for the House to deal with that subject.
I am sorry if my hon. Friends think that it is wrong to discuss some of the precedents for these matters. I do not complain about or criticise the discussion on the precedents. Discussion on the precedents that have been established by the House and on its traditions has continued over generations. These precedents must be examined with care. If


they are to be altered, the House must approach the matter with great care.
I do not believe that it is a good way to protect the present rights and liberties of the House to disregard what has happened. Certainly I do not see the matter in that light. That is why I dealt with what is said in the motion tabled by the hon. Member for Eastleigh.
The House must take into account the whole of the surrounding circumstances of a Bill of this character to which timetables are to be applied. The House should take into account what has happened in previous Sessions, just as it must take into account the precise precedents and procedures. We are not departing from the precedents and procedures. I believe that if the House of Commons, and particularly this House of Commons, were to say that no timetable motions were to be introduced on the two devolution Bills, that would be tantamount to saying that this House of Commons, in this Session, had no possibility whatsoever of placing the Bills on the statute book.
I believe that those who attended, day after day and night after night, as many of us did, our discussions in the last Session of Parliament—and I am making no accusations of filibustering, because very important issues were involved—must come to the conclusion that it would be impossible to reach an end to the debate. I therefore repeat my assertion that the rejection of a timetable on these Bills would be tantamount to saying that they could not be translated into Acts of Parliament in this Session—

Mr. Robert Mellish: Everyone knows that.

Mr. Foot: I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) will catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. My right hon. Friend's view of the matter, which he has stated in the House before, although I do not agree with it, is that all major Bills should have timetable motions applied to them from the start—

Mr. Mellish: With debate finishing at 11 o'clock at night.

Mr. Foot: Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends hold a similar view to that of my right hon. Friend the Member for

Bermondsey. That view is being presented to the Procedure Committee and is being discussed by it at the moment. I believe, however, that guillotine motions are not the best way in which to proceed, if it is possible to proceed successfully by other means.

Mr. Timothy Raison: The right hon. Gentleman is arguing that we should take note of what happened to this Bill in the previous Session. On that occasion the House said that it did not want the Bill to be guillotined. It seems a bizarre argument for the right hon. Gentleman to bring the Bill back this Session and say that it should be guillotined from the word "Go".

Mr. Foot: It is not a bizarre proposition for the House of Commons to be given a second chance to say what it thinks. It has happened repeatedly in history before. If it were held that a proposition could never again be presented to the House having once been turned down, that would be a recipe for permanent Conservatism. I am sure that the Conservatives want that. They were aggrieved when the Reform Act 1832 was presented to the House. The more the hon. Gentleman's proposition is considered, the more laughable it becomes.
I do not believe that any hon. Member contests that if we had sought to proceed with these Bills without any resort to a timetable motion that would have been tantamount to saying that the Bill should be abandoned. Some hon. Members—perhaps including the right hon. Gentleman for Down, South (Mr. Powell)—might say "Why worry?" But the House will make up its mind on the question and we shall see how we are to proceed. If we followed the suggestion of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), however, and were prevented from submitting proposals a second time, that would make successful and effective government of this country impossible.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Think of Robert the Bruce!

Mr. Foot: Indeed, we should think of Robert the Bruce, and my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) is the right person to remind us of that.

Mr. Tebbit: It is fair for the Government to bring their case forward again,


but does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it would be equally fair in that case for the House to be able to argue again in precisely the way it did the previous time?

Mr. Foot: The House will have considerable opportunities to argue the case. The idea that there is to be no further discussion on the Bill is quite wrong, and I hope that the hon. Member, who is always so careful to give the correct impression on these matters to the country, will not try to spread misleading information.

Mr. George Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I mean no disrespect to my right hon. Friend the Lord President. However, he has been speaking for 33 minutes—admittedly, with many interruptions—in the context of a guillotine. May we ask the Front Benches to guillotine their speeches? We know what they are going to say, and Back Benchers have a rôle to play here. We want them to have enough time to play it.

Mr. Foot: I regard that as an enthusiastic speech by my hon. Friend in support of the guillotine. His view seems to be, however, that while other people's speeches should be guillotined his own should not. We shall see how he votes on the matter at the end, but I am grateful for his support and I am encouraged by his enticement to me to reach my peroration.
The most important aspect of these Bills is that they are designed in what we consider to be the circumstances of the United Kingdom to preserve the unity of the United Kingdom. That is essential to the measures that we are presenting. I know that some hon. Members elsewhere in the House take a different view of the matter. Their main objection to the Bill is that it leans in the wrong direction. However, we hold the view, just as strongly and just as sincerely as they hold their view, that we must proceed through these measures and that that is the way to preserve the unity of the United Kingdom.
Those are our views and we have been urging them on the House not just for a few weeks or months but for several years. I believe, therefore, that it would be a dereliction of duty to the House and to the country if the Government were to turn their back on that and

say that, because of the procedural objections, they were not prepared to proceed with these measures.
The issues on which the House will vote at 7 o'clock, or soon after, and at 10 o'clock on these matters are whether these Bills should have the chance of going on the statute book and whether the Government will have the chance of presenting successfully to the House of Commons measures which we believe are essential for the maintenance of the unity of the United Kingdom.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House will take its decision not at 7 o'clock but at 6.43, which is three hours after we started. I should tell the House that I have not selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English).

4.18 p.m.

Mr. Francis Pym: The Lord President put a poor and hesitant case to the House and I think that he was conscious that his case was weak, as it so often is.

Mr. William Molloy: The right hon. Gentleman wrote that down before he heard my right hon. Friend speak.

Mr. Pym: If the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) wants to be told, I can tell him that he is wrong. He is a great smearer in this place. I wrote down my comments on the Lord President's speech as he made it. It is typical of the hon. Member to make an allegation such as that in the hope that it will stick. I throw it back at him and tell him that it would be a good idea if he kept his mouth shut until he knew what he was talking about.
The right hon. Gentleman spent a lot of time dealing with other people's shortcomings but not explaining his own. He made a number of references to a timetable motion in 1972. That was on a constitutional Bill, but there were, of course, a number of important differences between then and now. The most important was that before that timetable motion was moved there had been 10 days of debate in Committee, just as there was last Session on the Scotland and Wales Bill. The result of the vote in the


House was different last Session from what it was in 1972, however.
Perhaps I should remind the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) that we are not today discussing whether in principle it is a good idea to allocate time to Bills. We are discussing a particular timetable motion in particular circumstances in relation to a particular Bill. This afternoon we can forget all about previous guillotines and the arguments surrounding them.
By tabling this motion the Government are trying to take the House into a new world. This timetable motion, put before the House on the very morrow of the Second Reading debates on the Scotland Bill and the Wales Bill, holds the possibility of the end of the guillotine era and the arrival of the era of the electric chair. There are two timetable motions on the Order Paper today, so already it has become an electric settee. When the button is pressed, it remains to be seen whether the current will annihilate its victims in either or both seats. With a new device one cannot tell until one tests it. Some device! The victims are to be conducted instantly to their chairs without the hearing even having been started.
There is no question of any inordinate delay in the proceedings on the Bill. They have not even begun. As the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge, even last Session he made no complaint about unreasonable delay, because there was none. There is no question this afternoon of some pet Socialist doctrinal Bill about nationalisation or something else having to be saved from entirely legitimate and time-honoured parliamentary delaying tactics. Nor is this a case of some measure much debated in public and supported by an obvious majority of opinion requiring a time limit in Parliament to secure its enactment, which otherwise a minority could frustrate for an unreasonable amount of time.
For decades these have been the traditional guillotine arguments, always hotly debated in the House. In my view none of those arguments applies to this motion. Today we see for the first time what amounts to a new instrument for the suppression of parliamentary debate. I can find no trace of a previous occasion when a constitutional measure involving

major reform was guillotined immediately after Second Reading and before the Committee Stage. I can find no precedent for that. The Lord President referred to some, but I think that they were weak, and in one case certainly, if not more, I think that they were on agreed matters. Therefore, I think we are departing in a substantial way from any precedent.
In the Government bringing forward this motion today on such a disputed constitutional matter—nobody can deny that—I accuse them of abusing their special position and their special responsibility in relation to Parliament, of failing to consider the effect on their action upon Parliament and, in particular, the effect upon Parliament's supreme rôle of safeguarding the liberties of our people. It seems to me that the Government are seeking to elevate the power of a House of Commons majority into an unauthorised licence to override everybody else, to disregard minorities and all those who disagree with the Government, whatever their political views, and in particular, to set aside the undoubted rights of the House.
The long success and the genius of our unwritten constitution has always been in part the respect in which all parties and all people have held our institutions, and Parliament especially, and the rules, conventions and traditions surrounding them. If those rules are to be put on one side, we must weigh very carefully what we are doing and the risks that we are running with our trusteeship of the liberties of our people.
We know the deep doubts which exist about the Bill. We know that, whatever the votes may have been, the House does not in its heart believe in the Scotland Bill and the Wales Bill. This is hardly surprising in view of their contents, creating four different categories of Members of Parliament, all different, and five different rôles for the House, all different. But with the election year approaching, we know that the Government, very naturally and understandably, have been pressuring their Back Benchers to support the Bill even though they do not believe in it.
Many are adhering to their known convictions. Many who disagreed with the Scotland Bill on Monday, for one reason or another, nevertheless either supported


the Government on Second Reading or did not vote against it. Some hon. Members went so far as to speak against the Bill in the House but to vote for the Bill in the Lobbies, and coupled that with a commercial offering their services in a campaign against the Bill in the country if ever a referendum stage is reached. Some of them did it rather to the alarm of their hon. Friends.
There is nothing new in speaking in one sense and voting in another, but I think that the scale of it on this occasion is new. I notice that the hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Ryman) wrote in The Sunday Telegraph of 30th October that devolution was
a shabby political manoeuvre calculated to appease Scottish and Welsh nationalism.
Yet he voted for the Second Reading.
We heard similar speeches in the debate. I myself—it is only a personal view, of course—think that this sort of practice will not raise the standing of Members of Parliament in public esteem. I think that it will give rise to cynicism, and I am doubtful whether it is a development which is for the good of the House.
The Second Readings were obtained, for better or for worse. What is to happen now? The Government dare not wait for the arguments to be unleashed again. They are too overwhelming against the Bills, too devastating to be capable of a satisfactory answer. The consequence of unleashing the arguments once again, would, once again, be no guillotine and no Bill. That is precisely why the House is so ill at ease with the Bill.
I do not believe that there is an hon. Member in the House who is not conscious of the atmosphere of disquiet and uneasiness in this place over the Bill. The House feels almost trapped by it. I refrain from again rehearsing my argument for a conference of all parties, though I believe that it is an absolutely valid and appropriate way of making progress. But, unable to face the music or cacophony of criticism, according to how one looks at it, the Government are runing for cover in a move to stifle the argument—not completely, but effectively. No splitting of hairs about 17 days will cut any ice with anybody on either side of the House. I might add here that there was no need for the Wales Bill and cer-

tainly no demand for it. Therefore, those 11 days could have been made over to Scotland with advantage to Scotland and to Wales.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: A little earlier the right hon. Gentleman gave as one of the principal posts of his argument that there was no precedent for this procedure. Assuming—which I do not—that there were no precedents, perhaps I may remind the right hon. Gentleman that the whole life of Parliament has been a continuous growth and that precedents did not arise on the first day of creation. They have arisen since. Precedents have often been new, and then they are followed. I beg hon. Members' pardon. What I meant was that a precedent had often arisen as a new principle and subsequently been followed, and there is no reason why the same thing should not happen now.

Mr. Pym: It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman is agreeing with me that this is actually a precedent, and I am looking at it in that light. [Interruption.] I do not see why that should be a laughing matter, because that is exactly what I think the position is.
The Government are running away from the argument, waving the white flag of surrender, not of their cause but of their case, because their case has insufficient merit. They hope that they have one dugout left in which to take refuge, and that is to curtail the debate before it has even begun.
I think that that is a bit much, coming, as it does, from the Lord President. That is hardly a credible proposition, coming from him, because we know his parliamentary history and we have heard his lifelong perorations in defence of the liberties of the subject as defended in the House. Either we have been deceived about him for all of his parliamentary life or he is deceiving us now.
Whether or not one agrees with what the House decided on Monday night, the Second Reading decision has been taken. But this motion is something entirely different. It is procedural. It deals with how we are to deal with the Bill—not the substance. A majority of Members who spoke on the Bill were highly critical of it. Surely they want to be able to perform their parliamentary functions properly and adequately by testing the Bill


in debate. How can their misgivings and doubts be heard, let alone satisfied, if only a few of the issues are debated? How can the criticism be dispelled or proved valid except through the proper processes of this House?
Those who spoke against the Bills yet supported them on Second Reading and said that they would campaign against them in a referendum will surely want to scrutinise the legislation and challenge Ministers about their misgivings before entering the campaign—unless they so love campaigning for the sake of it that they do not very much mind what they campaign about.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the question of precedent, he will no doubt wish to cast his mind back to the fact that he was the Chief Whip in the Conservative Government which put the European Communities Bill through both Houses of Parliament without accepting an amendment in either place, so that the Bill which went on to the statute book was in the same form as when it received its Second Reading. Can he think of any other occasion when a Government have so treated a constitutional Bill? In the light of that experience, is he in a position to make allegations about this Government?

Mr. Pym: I do not quite understand what the Minister of State has in mind. I did not decide whether the House would amend that Bill, did I? What I say about that was that it was a constitutional Bill. It was guillotined but it did have 10 days in Committee first. There were many other differences, too, which I will not now rehearse. But the fact that the House decided not to make any amendment was a matter for the House to decide.
What I was about to say was that the existence of referendums, if the House decides to include them in the Bills, should not and does not absolve this House from carrying out its rôle properly. Can one imagine anything more dangerous or absurd than asking people to vote in a referendum, for or against a novel and elaborate scheme in which the House does not have confidence? We must be satisfied about the good sense of what

we put on offer. If we offer a choice it must be the right choice, otherwise what do we think we are all doing here?
I return briefly to the matter raised last Thursday concerning the intolerable burden that will be placed on another place if this motion is passed. If we do not consider this Bill properly, another place must. It is no use the Lord President saying, as he did last Thursday, that I am threatening him with the Lords. That was a deliberate smear, unworthy of any Lord President and he knows he invented it. The other place would go through the Bill carefully in any case.
What I think the Lord President was trying to say was that this House will not be able to do its duty if he has his way, and he does not expect the other place to do its duty either. The truth is that if we do our work properly the other place can do its work much more quickly. If we do not play our part we automatically create problems for another place. Perhaps the Lord President does not mind that too much. Some of his hon. Friends might welcome it, although we were interested in the view expressed by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) on Monday evening.
Is the Lord President's attitude of benefit to Parliament? Is it the proper way for a Lord President to fulfil his responsibilities to Parliament? I think not. The only people who honestly want to vote for this motion are those hon. Members who are virtually certain that this Bill is right—and there are precious few of them. All the rest of us wish to ensure that there is proper time available in the usual parliamentary way.
I point out how detailed this Bill is. It lists, first, the general powers to be devolved and then detailed exceptions to them. Then it has listed specific Acts and even specific sections of Acts that are excepted. It then lists those powers to be devolved for executive but not legislative purposes. This is a new and complex way of making a division of powers, and something which ought not to be examined in a rush. In addition, the Bill raises a wide range of major constitutional issues, including the referendum, single-Chamber legislation and especially the rôle of Members of Parliament We are all waiting for an answer to the question which has justly become known as


the "West Lothian question". This is central to the whole argument.
This brings me to consider the implications for the future. Is the referendum to become more frequently used? Is it to be reserved for constitutional Bills or Bills that are awkward for the Government? Certainly these two Bills are the most important this Session and the most awkward. What about the Bill for establishing direct elections to the European Parliament? How is that to be handled? It is the precedent of this Motion that is so significant. It seems to be a lowering of our high parliamentary standards, and for largely political reasons. It is fair to add that the Opposition has certainly been co-operative. We have been constructive. Our offer to co-operate in a conference still stands. We tried to co-operate earlier this year.

Mr. Norman Buchan: Do I take it from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that when we consider the Bill providing for direct elections to the EEC the Conservative Party will oppose the guillotine? Is this what the right hon. Gentleman has said?

Mr. Pym: What I am asking is: how will this EEC Bill be handled? Is it to be guillotined? We do not know. It ought to have been brought in last year and it would be on the statute book by now. We tried to co-operate last year in the establishment of a Select Committee, a proposal which the Lord President put forward. We believe that the terms of reference we proposed were eminently reasonable. But the Government insisted upon adhering strictly to their Scotland and Wales Bill, which they later admitted was defective.
It is not necessary for the House to pass this motion tonight. A General Election will not follow. The Government were right not to make this procedural motion one of confidence. If the Government lose the motion they can try for another later. That would be the normal time, after a certain period has elapsed in Committee. At the time of the defeat of the guillotine motion on the earlier Bill, I said:
It was…a House of Commons decision ".—[Official Report, 22nd February 1977; Vol. 926, c. 1365–6.]
This, too, is a House of Commons decision. There is far more at stake than

simply trying to get one constitutional Bill on to the statute book quickly. We are debating and deciding upon a small but literally vital aspect of our parliamentary machinery, designed to safeguard the liberties of our people. If we are to change that procedure on a permanent basis it has to be done with the full agreement of all the parties in this House and with good will, not swiftly and peremptorily introduced in the circumstances of a Government wanting a particular Bill which is highly controversial. I hope that after the most thoughtful consideration the House, in all its experience, will refuse to pass this motion and stick to its well-tried procedures and practice.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. Robert Mellish: The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) was a very good Chief Whip in his day. He is a man of integrity. I have no doubt that he believes most sincerely what he has said and really does think that this is a change in procedure which is being put forward by the Government. Let me put something to him. My right hon. Friend the Lord President agrees with the right hon. Gentleman on one thing—that without a guillotine there is no hope of either of these Bills reaching the statute book. The argument, therefore, comes down to whether this procedure is right. I know that it has been said many times before, but, while Governments have a right to govern, Oppositions have a right to oppose.
Ultimately it has to be remembered that the Government spent 30 days in the last Session trying to get this Bill through. It was inevitable, everyone knew it, that the Government would take this step rather than introduce the Bills and then bring in a guillotine a little later because by then it would look right and decent. The fact of the guillotine has been accepted from the word "go". The leading articles in some of the newspapers today, certainly the Daily Mirror, have summed it up absolutely adequately.
The right hon. Gentleman would be correct if these Bills had never before been debated. If the subject of this Bill had never before been debated in the House, and the guillotine was a new procedure, it would be right to argue that there should have been discussions about


it. But this House has already debated the subject ad nauseam, and some of my hon. Friends made a determined attempt to do everything they could to ensure that the earlier devolution Bills did not go through. That is not filibustering. No one has to filibuster if a certain number of hon. Members are continually getting up and are able to be called; and are able to put down hundreds of amendments. My understanding is that that is not filibustering but good parliamentary tactics. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) does this very well. He is an expert at it.
I do not accuse the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire of being a humbug, but no one has been more involved in guillotine motions than he has. He will remember the direct clash between us when we were Chief Whips. He guillotined the Industrial Relations Bill without even telling me, as Opposition Chief Whip, therefore he cannot suggest that all the virtues are on his side and none on the Government side. I did the job for seven years, and I learned that at the end of the day, with the knowledge that certain legislation cannot be obtained without a guillotine, a Government have no alternative but to use it.
When a Government take office, their first function, after the Cabinet has been established, is to set up a legislative committee to determine which Bills shall have top priority. It is usually chaired by the Lord President of the Council, and the Chief Whip has to attend. Ministers ask the Chief Whip when they can hope to get on the statute book the Bills in which they are interested. How, otherwise, are we to run our democracy? Is the Chief Whip to say "I have not the slightest idea. I cannot tell you. I have not a clue."? Is this democracy?

Mr. George Cunningham: Yes it is.

Mr. Mellish: But at the end of the day the same people who say that will also demand that the Government implement their so-called manifestos. They are the same people who demand that the legislation of which they are in favour shall be given priority—especially measures dealing with State ownership. These are not the great constitutional measures, I agree, but I did not hear any complaint from my hon. Friend the Member for

Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) when we dealt with the State ownership of shipbuilding and had the guillotine straight away, because we all knew that every Member of the Conservative Party and most of the Opposition parties were opposed to it. We could get the Bill only by using the guillotine. Did anyone object on the Government side?

Mr. Tebbit: The right hon. Gentleman obviously was not involved in the Committee stage of the Bill to nationalise the shipbuilding industry. The Bill was not guillotined.

Mr. Mellish: If the hon. Gentleman will listen to me, I will explain why I do not share the views of some hon. Members who are arguing about the guillotine. Again and again in the case of Bills for State ownership we have had to bring in the guillotine because of the determined opposition to the Bill.

Mr. Tebbit: But not on the Bill to nationalise the shipbuilding industry.

Mr. Mellish: Well, it was brought in on most of them. We ought to stop talking humbug about guillotine motions. If the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) ever gets into a Government position, he will see the logic of what I say. It is impossible for Governments to govern without a guillotine and to get their major legislation through, in my view. I agree that it should not be done without discussion between all the parties concerned. I do not believe that any Bill that is of major consequence, and on which there is a major clash between the Government and the Opposition of the day, should come before the House until there have been discussions.
I believe in what I call an end guillotine motion, that is to say, a motion which simply says that on, say, 31st May the Bill will have its Third Reading. I believe that the period of time allocated to a Bill should be a matter of discussion between those responsible for running the House. This may well come about in the future. It has never been tried before. I believe that it ought to be tried now, because I believe in the Government governing and the Opposition opposing. The Government would get their Bill eventually, much later than they wanted,


but the Opposition would have a chance of opposing.
From some of the arguments put forward in this House one might almost believe that the Government of the day dominate the House and take all the time. The fact is that 29 days are given to the Opposition for Supply. On one day a week the Opposition are able to say what they wish on the matters that concern them. Almost every Friday is allocated to Private Members' Bills. The Government get three days out of the five in the week. It is humbug, therefore, to talk about the Government dominating the scene and taking away the rights of the Opposition and of the private Member.
Everyone knows, that the truth is that the two devolution Bills could not get through without a guillotine. If the Government were to lose the guillotine motion tonight on these Bills, as they may well do if my hon. Friends join with the Opposition, the Government's entire programme of legislation will be in disarray.

Mr. George Younger: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that under his suggested scheme the Government would be totally certain of getting ally Bill on which they put a guillotine? If that were the case, what would be the point of having an Opposition at all?

Mr. Mellish: That would be a logical argument if the principle of these two Bills were coming before the House for the first time. I will not use the word "humbug" but I remind the hon. Gentlemen of what happened here last Session. We were talking about devolution day after day after day, and nothing is likely to be said in the days allocated to the devolution Bills that has not been said already many times.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: My right hon. Friend is unfair to the Government when he suggests that if the devolution Bills are lost the whole legislative programme of the Government will be in disarray. Surely he has noticed that in the Queen's Speech there are a number of worthy measures to which his party is committed, and which could be brought in. We are told that some of them cannot be brought in for want of time. If the guillotine motions were

defeated, the Government's legislative programme would not be in disarray. The devolution Bills would be dropped but we could then get on with all sorts of other measures to which the party is committed, and which are a great deal more relevant than the devolution Bills.

Mr. Mellish: That is exactly the argument that was put by the Opposition in the last Session. Whenever the Government introduced State ownership measures, the Opposition said that they were irrelevant and of no consequence and that the Government should get rid of them. The Opposition said that the Government should get on with matters which would do more good to the nation. That is the oldest argument in the world. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) knows better than anyone why the Government are committed to the devolution Bills. We are not arguing the principle of the Bills—

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Mellish: My hon. Friend should be fair about this. The arguments about what is contained in these Bills have already been expressed again and again. He knows only too well that without the guillotine the Government cannot get these devolution Bills. Everyone in the House knows it, and it is humbug to say anything else at all.

4.48 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The House is familiar with the preference of the right hon. Member for Bermondsay (Mr. Mellish) for the notion of a general timetabling of major Government legislation. He would rest it upon the principle—if it be a principle—that in this House ultimately there must be ways for the will of the majority to prevail. That being so, his case is not relevant to the proposition which is before us this afternoon. I imagine that no Minister, in introducing a guillotine motion, has been more candid than the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council was on 22nd February 1977: his candid assertion then was that time had not been wasted in the first 10 days in Committee. When the House was asked whether it wanted to proceed at an accelerated pace by curtailing discussion, the House, knowing what was involved, said "No".
The majority by which the Second Reading of the Scotland Bill was passed on Monday this week was almost the same as the majority 11 months ago when it was part of the Scotland and Wales Bill. But there the similarity ends. Eleven months ago at Second Reading stage there was probably just a majority in the House in favour of the Bill. There certainly was not a majority in the House in favour of the Scotland Bill on Monday. In order to know that, one does not have to resort to suspicion; one simply had to sit through the debate, hear what hon. Members said, and listen to the speeches of hon. Members, many of whom constituted and made possible the majority by which the Second Reading was carried.

Mr. Mellish: It was carried.

Mr. Powell: It is no secret that one of the main reasons for the change between December 1976 and November 1977 was the effect upon the minds of hon. Members of the arguments which had been deployed, the aspects of the Bill which had been exposed and explored, during those days in Committee—days when time was not limited to a certain number of hours for the consideration of a certain number of clauses.
Perhaps the most striking speech in Monday's debate was that of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook), who has very courteously indicated to me that he is sorry he cannot be present this afternoon. He deployed, with his customary intellectual incisiveness, the most devastating case against the Bill, based upon his reflections in the 11 months which had intervened; but he came to a conclusion—a conclusion which I think surprised the House—that he was nevertheless going to vote for Second Reading and for the guillotine motion in order that the Bill might subsequently be destroyed by a referendum in one part of the Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman concluded with the words:
I believe that this is an honourable course."—[Official Report, 14th November 1977; Vol. 839, c. 162.]
I would not bandy words with him, even if he were present, as to whether the course is honourable. But this I say without hesitation: that that is not the parliamentary way of resolving a

dilemma, and that it is death to this institution if the public understand that Members come here convinced that a measure is bad and still vote that measure through this House, on the assumption that "with a little bit of luck" that measure can be disposed of outside this House by some unparliamentary procedure.
The parliamentary way in which dilemmas are resolved, the way in which this House decides whether a proposed measure, with all its imperfections, ought to go on the statute book, is by debating it without constraint, by debating it in Committee without being limited to specific times for specific aspects of the Bill.
I turn from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central to the speech on Monday of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). Some hon. Members, I was sad to notice, seemed to think that the painful dilemma in which he found himself was amusing. I did not find it amusing at all. It was a very real dilemma, and it did credit to the hon. Gentleman that he exposed it so candidly. He said: "This is a measure, though I do not like it, though I condemn it, which was part of the election policy of my party, and I was elected as a member of a party which had this as part of its election policy." He found himself torn between the moral duty of honouring the compact with the electorate which is implicit in the major elements of an election policy and the duty not to be party to helping put on the statute book something which one believes is unworkable and damaging.
I also for my part do not take election manifestos lightly. If I had been able to take election manifestos and party election policies more lightly, I would probably be sitting in this House for the seat which is occupied by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen). Indeed, I think I am probably not the only Member of this House who has come to the conclusion that the extraordinary phenomenon of the Leader of the House, the first parliamentarian among us all, managing to advocate a measure of this sort is due to his sense—he has said it over and over again—that there is no escape for him from the commitment of honour which was constituted by the election policy of the Labour Party.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Walton is not present, but I have told him that I should refer to this point, and, as I have explained, it is in no spirit of criticism that I do so. There is a resolution of his dilemma. There is a parliamentary resolution of his dilemma. There is a correct way for the hon. Gentleman and many others out of their difficulty. Let it be granted that the Government were compelled in honour to introduce some measure of devolution. What no one can assert is that, by its election policy, the Labour Party is obliged to force through the House of Commons by guillotine a particlar form of measure for devolution. The hon. Member for Walton does nothing to offend his conscience, nothing to offend the most exquisite conscience, if he votes against the curtailment of time in Committee for discussion of these Bills.
That is the way in which, when we can—we do not always succeed—we manage to avoid saddling the citizens of this country with legislation that is either impracticable, or has the opposite effect to that intended, or proves to be gravely damaging in ways which superficially were not suspected.
I make a personal appeal to the Leader of the House. As is the way very often with personal appeals, I rest it upon a reference to the good old times, to shared experience. It is already part of contemporary history, if not of contemporary legend, that he and I and others—but he and I seem to get mentioned more than the others—were responsible for destroying the Parliament (No. 2) Bill in the Session 1968–69. We did it because we were both convinced that it was not merely inherently absurd and unworkable but that if it ever came into existence it would be an abominable instrument of patronage that would be used against the rights of this House.
I very much doubt whether today any hon. Member, any party in any part of the House, if they could by a flick of the fingers put that Bill on the statute book, would do so. Of course they would not. They would recoil in horror. The thing has been covered with ridicule in the years that have passed. There may be a case for or against reforming the other Chamber; but no one would ever dream now of doing it in such a way as that proposed in the 1968 Bill.
That Bill passed Second Reading by a majority very much bigger than the majorities which carried Second Reading of the two devolution Bills yesterday and the day before. It was supported by the Government—it was a Government Bill, included in the Queen's Speech. It was supported, though rather more passively, by the Opposition Front Bench of the day. I have no doubt that the majority for it on Second Reading was largely genuine. Hon. Members thought to themselves "This is a good idea. Let us reform the House of Lords. Let us modernise it."
But then what happened? Day after day as we proceeded—not generally to unreasonable hours—hon. Members from all parts of the House, hon. Members, not particularly interested in that question, sat here or stood below the Bar and began to say to themselves "But this is not workable. There are contradictions in this which have not been resolved. This will be an intolerable disturbance or even destruction of the equilibrium of Parliament. This will play havoc with the balance between the Executive and the House of Commons."
Thus the time came—it so happens, by a felicitous coincidence, after 10 sittings in Committee—when the Government did not even try the experiment of 22nd February last. They did not even try to introduce a guillotine. The procedure of the House of Commons had done its work. It had rescued the Government, it had rescued the Government party, it had rescued the House of Commons itself, from committing that folly.
The Lord President is one who has taught this House of Commons that we are fertile of expedient and that to say that the House of Commons can get into a trap but not get itself out of it is to talk nonsense. That is one of the lessons that we have sat at the right hon. Gentleman's feet to learn. Many Government supporters think that they are in exactly that position today. They hate these Bills. They make no secret of their hatred for them. But they do not know how to get out of the trap into which they have been drawn by the persistence of the Government and the commitments that they have undertaken. Yet all the time, the way to freedom lies there in the ordinary procedures of this House.
The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that if there had been a guillotine after the Second Reading of the Parliament (No. 2) Bill, allowing one sitting up to 11 o'clock for Clauses 1 and 2, another sitting for Clauses 3 and 4, and so on, that so-called reform, that disastrous nonsense, would surely have found its way on to the statute book; for the place at the other end of the corridor would have had a majority of about 500 in favour of it. There is no hope that absurdities of that sort which this House commits will be corrected elsewhere. It is our own procedure we must rely upon for that purpose.
So by the recollection of one of the services for which the Lord President will perhaps be most remembered in history—history may, indeed, say of both of us, "Those boys didn't do very much good, but at least they stopped a piece of clotted nonsense on that occasion"—by the experience of that event, by the fact of the harm which the right hon. Gentleman knows would have been perpetrated if that Bill, a Government Bill in the Queen's Speech, had been guillotined as the right hon. Member for Bermondsey would wish all such Bills to be guillotined—I appeal to the Lord President, of all people, to allow the House of Commons to use its procedure in Committee unconstrained—at least at first—so as to see whether we can resolve the contradictions with which all hon. Members know that these Bills, and, therefore, they themselves, are beset and avoid saddling those whom we represent with consequences for which otherwise they will curse us.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. George Cunningham: I disagree with only one part of what the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said in his moving and effective speech. He ended by appealing to the Lord President to permit the House to use its normal procedures in order to have the effects which he described.
I do not blame the Government for bringing forward this guillotine motion. The commitments which they have unfortunately entered into are so strong that they have nailed their colours to the mast and tied the nails with wire so many times that they are bound to go on in that direction. Any wavering Mem-

ber of this House who is looking for the solution to his personal dilemma by asking the Government to get him out of it must look in vain. We cannot expect them to help us in resolving the problem.
Therefore, I do not address my remarks to the Government. This lot will vote for the motion and that lot will vote against it: the Front Benches are totally irrelevant today. I address my remarks to those who on crucial occasions are always the ones who matter—those who are prepared to vote the way that they think and who are still in a position to think afresh. That means my hon. Friends the Members for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) and Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), and many others in the House.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) suggested that whatever there was to be said about devolution had been said long ago and that nothing new could be said in the course of the debates now. I hope the House has appreciated the enormous significance of the change in the content of the debate as between last winter and Monday of this week. It was colossal.
What was happening last winter was that the right hon. Member for Down, South, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and some others were saying "There is a problem about devolving to one part of the country but not devolving to others, and there is no answer to the problem." The reaction of the supporters of the Bill was to say not that there was an answer to the problem but that there was not a problem.
I ask the House to contrast that with the speeches on Monday, when speaker after speaker on both sides of the House—principally supporters of the Bill—said "There is a problem. It may be solved by a federal arrangement. But we shall have to find a solution and, until we do, devolving to one part of the country is incompatible with the continuation of the unity of the country." The House has been exposing itself to a system of self-education by debate, which is what it normally does, and the effect of the guillotine will be to cut that short and to ensure that we are unable to learn any more lessons and to realise that there is here a totally insoluble problem.
I agree wholeheartedly that the problem is quite insoluble. There are problems to which there is just no answer. It is not possible to find the square root of a minus number. It is not possible to find any way of coping with devolution to Scotland and having the 71 Members in this House unless we walk along the federal path. The Liberal Party is the only group in the House which in the past has been prepared to acknowledge that. But we cannot at this stage possibly say that we will now adopt in principle the notion of walking along the federal path because we now see that that is the only way of making this Bill workable.
Therefore, we are left with the insoluble problem that we cannot devolve to Scotland and have the 71 Members here without breaking up the legislative unity of the country.
The problem is expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian. It is usually in terms of whether the 71 Members are to vote on English education and the like. The problem can be expressed more starkly in terms of what happens after a General Election. When there is a majority of the United Kingdom Members who are Labour and a majority of the English Members who are Conservative, there will be a British Government who are a Labour Government. The people of Scotland will be able to opt for a Labour education policy in Scotland and a Labour housing policy in Scotland by electing a majority of Labour men in the Edinburgh Assembly. But the people of England will not be able to have a Labour policy—or, more usually, a Conservative policy—on education in England by electing a majority of Conservatives in England. They will have to elect a sufficiently large margin of a Conservative majority to outweigh the normal predominance of Labour representatives which would arrive from Scotland and Wales. That is no mean number.
The next excess of Labour over Conservative, even after netting off the reverse trend in Northern Ireland in the last four elections, has been between 27 and 45. If any Member imagines that the dynamics of politics are such that 45 million Englishmen will put up with having to win over the devolved parts of the country as well as their own parts to get the Government of their choosing, he is living in dreamland.
Of course such a situation would suit my party and me personally. But if that arrangement were to continue, the dynamics of politics are such that every party—certainly the Conservatives and the Naional Front as well—would make every possible use of that anomaly. The anomaly is so intolerable and of such a size that there would be no chance of its succeeding. From the pressure from Scotland to go further down the path that had been entered upon there would come pressure from England to start on that path. We should end up either with separatism or a federal constitution, which has not yet been investigated.
There is no solution to these problems and the majority of Members have now realised it. They are not just beginning to realise it, they have already realised. Why then, one may well ask, did a majority vote for it? Some people say that if the Bill is not passed now, it is very likely that there will be a greater demand for independence in Scotland.
I believe that Scottish people at present think that there are three possibilities—the status quo, independence, or devolution. We have come to realise by processes of self-education through debate that the middle one is a mirage. But the people of Scotland have not yet had it brought home to them. When it does come home to them they will choose not independence but an improved version of legislative unity—and I call it that rather the status quo. The only thing that will lead the Scots to independence is if we lead them blindfolded and alone towards the door of independence, kidding them that it is not independence through the door but something far short of it.
I would not vote for an arrangement which prejudiced the form of Government for 45 million Englishmen because it is thought to be desired—no one claims that it is good—simply because we are stuck on the hook for the 5 million people in Scotland. I am encouraged in my views by the remarks of my Friends the Members for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) and for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) in the debate on Monday. My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew-shire, West said that he had predicted an outcry when the House killed the Bill in February, but no outcry came. There was no great interest in devolution and no marches in the street. If there


were marches, they would be about housing, jobs and prices and not about the irrelevancy of devolution.

Mr. Dalyell: During the three months after 22nd February in my constituency I received more letters complaining about the rise in the price of canary seed than about devolution.

Mr. Cunningham: I accept that. I ask Members who are still free to realise that when they vote, believing that they are using a tactic to do down their enemies on the SNP Benches, they have only to look and see that SNP Members are laughing their heads off. Thus Members must realise that they are lending their votes to carry through a tactic that the SNP supports, and they should think again.
Members of the SNP and my friends from the Scottish Labour Party are not muddle-headed Englishmen. They are hard-headed people who know precisely which way they are going. They say that they see this as the first step to independence. What they did not say was that it was a necessary first step to independence.
My Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) said he saw this as a catapult to an independence Bill. Those who think that they are buying off independence should pause and look at their enemies on the SNP Benches supporting them in what they are doing.
Some people say that if we do not vote for the motion, the Government will fall. We know that words have been said—not to me, because I am regarded as incorrigible—about what might happen if the motion is defeated tonight. It is incontestable that if the motion is defeated the Prime Minister will not go to Buckingham Palace tomorrow to hand in his resignation. Anyone who believes that he will is extremely naive. That will not happen, and neither will Government credibility be grossly endangered—whatever that word "credibility" means. People use it when they have a power cut in their mental processes. If the motion is defeated, the Government will be able to get on with work on more substantive issues, and people will applaud them for doing so.
I do not blame the Government for bringing forward the motion. They had to do so. It is a House decision whether the motion is passed, and it is a great historic decision. We cannot pass the buck to the electorate in the referendum, because the people in Scotland will say "Parliament has passed the Bill; who are we to cut its throat?" This is precisely where the other alternative will be represented as a do-nothing alternative, which is not quite fair. People will say to each of us "If Members of Parliament did not have the guts to cut its throat, we shall be hesitant about cutting the Bill's throat in the polling booths." Of course, a miracle might occur and the people might have more sense than we have, but I think that is asking too much.
I ask every Member who has an open mind to use his vote and to use all of it, not just part of it. Members who could be counted on just two hands could kill this thing tonight. This is not an issue on which abstention is possible. It is not an issue on which a word said by the Chief Whip could be held to prevent a Member from doing what he believes is right. This is a historic and irreversible decision, and our grandchildren would not forgive us if we did not use our powers to stop something that we know is not wise.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. David Steel: There is only one point on which I agree with either the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) or the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). That is, if this timetable motion is not accepted tonight the Bill will not go through. On that point we are on common ground.
The right hon. Member for Down, South is correct in saying that the Government have no electoral commitment to any particular Bill. That is just the trouble. For almost 10 years people of Scotland have looked on this place, regardless of the Government in power, as having a commitment to devolution in general but to nothing in particular. There is a limit to the time we can continue in this posture.
If, as the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) said, there are those who believe that this is a bad Bill, so bad that it is impossible, the right thing is for them to vote against


it. But why did they not vote against it on Monday night and again last night? The wrong thing to do from the House of Commons' and the public's point of view is to go on, day in day out, night in night out, dragging on the agony of discussion in the vain hope that matters of contention will be resolved by endless debate when we know that they will not.
It is right that we should not clog the legislative programme and go through this exhausting process. We should have a sensible timetable motion if we are to do anything at all.
I disagree with the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) in one sense. He seemed to argue that the novelty of having this timetable motion before Committee stage was a bad move. However, I see no merit in the right hon. Gentleman's case that the Bill should go on in Committee until we have worn ourselves out dealing with Clauses 1 to 3 and, after that, when everybody is absolutely fed up with the debate on the first two clauses, we should rush the debate on all the other provisions. There is no merit in that proposition.
I say what I have always said in these debates, and I look back to the 1972 European Communities Bill where I dealt with this matter on 2nd May 1972. I then referred to the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure of 1966–67. The recommendation then was:
Your Committee believe that the House should come to accept timetabling for Bills as a more regular practice.
I added, when arguing in favour of the guillotine, of which the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire was then in favour:
That ought to be the case and that is the view I and my colleagues have always taken on the timetabling of this and other Bills."—[Official Report, 2nd May 1972; Vol. 836, c. 260.]
When we came to the guillotine on the Scotland and Wales Bill on 22nd February of this year, I said:
My colleagues and I have never been opposed to the principle of a negotiated timetable at the start of a Bill. I made that clear to Ministers before the Summer Recess, but they chose not to take that course."—[Official Report, 22nd February 1977; Vol. 926, c. 1266.]
That was the position on the previous Bill, but the position on the present Bills from the point of view of the Liberal Party which is that this timetable motion

has been agreed before the debate starts. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not agreed."] I am speaking for my party, not for the whole of the House. I am arguing that this is a reasonable proposition to be advanced at the beginning of debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is no use the Conservative Front Bench occupants shaking their heads. We came to a similar agreement with them when they were in Government in 1972. Therefore, any cries of outrage from them about any agreement will not do.

Mr. Raison: If we go back to the last Session, what happened was that the Liberal Party voted in favour of the Bill against the guillotine. If we had had the guillotine immediately after the Second Reading, is it conceivable that the Liberal Party would not have voted in favour of the Bill and in favour of the guillotine? What happened was that the course of argument caused the Liberal Party rightly to change its mind. Therefore, is not the right hon. Gentleman's argument palpably nonsensical?

Mr. Steel: No, it is not nonsensical. I cannot answer a hypothetical question. There was no attempt on that occasion to introduce a sensible timetable motion at the beginning or to seek agreement on such a motion. However, agreement has been sought on this occasion.
I wish to deal with what was said by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire in the Second Reading debate on Monday. He attempted to quote me against myself as having said in the earlier debate of 22nd February:
There has never been any consultation or any kind of cross-party talk of the kind mentioned by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire."—[[Official Report, 14th November 1977; Vol. 939, c. 80.]
That was my criticism in the last guillotine debate, and again I am speaking for my own party.
But on this occasion there have been not only talks but endless consultations on the form of this Bill across party lines. I am not pretending that we are now faced with the most perfect measure ever met with in parliamentary terms. All I am saying is that so far as we are concerned the measures which are now before us are in a more sensible form than was the measure last Session.
I went on in the previous guillotine debate to say:
There has been no concession or change in principle since the Bill was introduced, and none in the direction of those who support the Bill."—[Official Report, 22nd February 1977; Vol. 926, c. 1272.]
That is not the present position. There have been a good many changes in the legislation since last time. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Scotland in his opening speech outlined many of them. The first important fact is that we now have two separate Bills. Anybody who examines the Scotland and Wales Bill and compares discussions on that measure with the debates held this week will accept that this time we have proceeded on a much more rational basis. Discussion has followed more logically on the separate Bills. Furthermore, the powers of override have been changed, as have the provisions for judicial review, and there is less overlap. There are to be changes in financial provisions even though those are not part of the legislation. Therefore, the Government have come a long way to meet our views.
The main reason for our change in our views on the guillotine is that we have changed our view on the merits of the proposals which are now before us. They are much more acceptable than they were on the last occasion. We accept that they are not acceptable to the Conservative Party.

Mr. Roger Moate: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why this measure is acceptable to him because of these improvements and why originally he supported the Second Reading of the Scotland and Wales Bill?

Mr. Steel: A Second Reading debate is concerned with principle rather than with detail. On the previous occasion the Government had not made any of the changes which they have now made in the present Bills following inter-party consultation.
I argued on the Scotland and Wales Bill in the guillotine debate that the Government had three options. I said:
The first is to go ahead with the Bill, chastened by their experience tonight
—I was there referring to defeat on the guillotine motion—
and willing to consult others and to make changes in the form of the Bill so as to recover

enough good will and a majority in the House to get the Bill through.
That is an option which the Government have adopted. I then dealt with the Conservative proposition for an all-party conference. I said:
time has gone on, and in saying to the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire that this is still a possibility, we are entitled to ask him or someone else from the Opposition to confirm that the objective of such a conference would be to decide how, and not whether, devolution for Scotland and Wales should take place."—[Official Report, 22nd February 1977; Vol. 926, c. 1273–4.]
We did not get an answer to that question. That is why we never had an all-party convention or conference. One of the major parties was not prepared to go into such consultations or to agree to any commitment to legislate. It wanted to go back to the pre-Kilbrandon situation and to discuss again the basis whether there should be devolution for Scotland.
I can to some extent understand the Conservative stance, but they are seeking to persuade the Government to do the impossible. They want the Government to square the circle of the West Lothian-West Bromwich question. I do not think that that anomaly can be put right in any perfect way, save under a federal system which a larger number of Members are coming to accept, but which is not on the cards at the moment.
We must reach a judgment whether these Bills are capable in future of adaptation towards a federal system or whether there are too many anomalies. I accept that there are anomalies. I would accept the Kilbrandon proposal of reducing the number of Scottish Members of Parliament to the correct number proportionately. But I say that as an aside. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is irrelevant."] It is not irrelevant because it would reduce the degree of offence.
I accept that there are anomalies, but what staggers me about those who use the anomaly argument to hold up devolution is that they do not stop to look at the anomaly of the way in which we run this place. To hear some of the arguments advanced in the House one would think that what goes on in the Palace of Westminster was the most rational and perfect system imaginable. The Leader of the House last night spoke of local government in Wales, and I remember the passage of the Local Government


(Scotland) Bill when there were important issues of deep concern to Scottish Members. There was intense debate on those matters through the night, but what happened when a Division was called? At 3 a.m. or 4 a.m. the bells would ring and English, Welsh and Northern Irish Members, who had been engaged in their work or sleeping, would flood into the Chamber and decide the issue that we had been discussing for many hours. How does one defend that kind of anomaly to the Scottish people? Yet we have accepted it and the House has been able to work with that built-in anomaly.
One need only consider the House of Lords. If a visitor from Mars came here and asked "This is the Mother of Parliaments and the most sophisticated democracy in the world. How do you organise yourself?", we should have to answer that Bills are passed from here to another Chamber consisting partly of descendants of those who performed various services to past monarchs and partly of appointees of past Prime Ministers, made at the Prime Minister's discretion. That is the position of the second Chamber of Parliament, but it works.
I am in favour of reform, but the system works and we have been able to develop conventions as we have gone along. The most recent is that the Conservative Party in the Lords does not use its inbuilt majority to block legislation that this House has accepted. That is sensible, but no one has written that down. It does not appear in any Bill, but we have adopted it. Therefore, any anomalies—which I accept will exist—between the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies and this House will be capable of being overcome with a degree of common sense. They will not be overcome by endless debate, nor shall we find that hours of discussion will provide a solution to the problem—a solution that evaded the Kilbrandon Commission and that has evaded us during our lengthy debates on the last Bill and the Second Reading to date on this one. More debate is not the answer.
A constitutional measure requires a timetable. The reason that the House of Lords Reform Bill was lost was precisely that the Government could not carry a guillotine and the House decided quite rightly—though that is a matter of

opinion—that it did not want the measure and it was withdrawn. Either this Bill should be withdrawn or—if we are to reach a conclusion—we should agree the timetable motion tonight.
I say seriously to Conservatives that I understand their difficulties. It is too easy to pour ridicule upon the internal difficulties of the Conservative Party. However, I simply do not accept that the Tory Party—having been unable to come to a conclusion alone on what their policy should be—would somehow be able to come to a conclusion if they were locked in a room with Labour, Liberal and nationalist hon. Members, that such would be the chemistry and miraculous alchemy that the Conservatives would suddenly find a policy. The House must decide. If we will the end of devolution, we must will the means, and that must be through rational and ordered debate in the House. We should get that or we should abandon the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): There is little time left for hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate before the winding-up speeches, so I appeal for brevity.

5.33 p.m.

Mr. George Reid: There will, no doubt, be great rejoicing in some nationalist circles tonight if the guillotine motion fails. It would then be relatively simple for the Scottish National Party to hotfoot it north of the border and say, to the people of Scotland: "We told you so. London is not to be trusted. Given that Scots hon. Members voted 2 to 1 for the guillotine the English majority will always have its way. The only option now is outright independence". That road could lead to collision and confrontation, and it is not a road down which the Scottish National Party intends to go unless it is forced to by tonight's vote. The SNP will therefore be firmly in the Government Lobby this evening.
This has been an extraordinary week at Westminster for rumour, gossiping and scaremongering. Certain hon. Members have hinted that they might do a disappearing act and take themselves off to Israel. That is not the SNP way. We recognise that 80 per cent. of Scots want some form of constitutional change and,


more important, an orderly and responsible transfer of power from London to Edinburgh. There can be no talk, therefore, of devolution as an "imperial settlement" and a once-and-for-all transfer of power. Devolution is a continuing process and the point at which it stops will be decided not by this House but by the people of Scotland alone. To assume that a vote for the guillotine tonight, however, will inevitably mean that the Scottish people are on the road to independence is arrant nonsense. There are many hurdles to be covered yet. All that we are talking about now can be summed up as "No guillotine: No Bill".
This may not be a particularly good Bill, but it is the only one that we have and the best that we are likely to get. It is a small start towards solving the Scottish problem. Hon. Members who believe that the best way of handling the problem is by doing nothing will clearly find themselves voting against the guillotine tonight.
Since devolution is a continuing process, it is important to put on record that the SNP sees the Bill simply as the start of a return of decision making to the Scots. We had an interesting meeting with the STUC on this subject on Monday of this week. The General Secretary of Scottish TUC, Mr. James Milne, gave it as his considered opinion that
The present Bill is not the end of the road".
He wanted revenue raising powers for the Assembly, full industrial powers and separate links between the Scottish Assembly and the EEC. When we vote for the guillotine tonight it will not mean that we regard the present Bill as anything more than setting up a useful halfway house to a totally changed situation.

Mr. Buchan: It is always difficult when hon. Members give a version of what happened at a meeting but, with respect, the hon. Member for Clackmannan and Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) is not being accurate. Will he not agree that the STUC totally reject independence or a separatist position and that it does not wish to go along that road? Does the hon. Gentleman not also agree that the General Secretary said nothing of the kind about full industrial power for Scotland because that is not the policy of the STUC as determined at congress last

year? The STUC has decided to reject full industrial powers for Scotland.

Mr. Reid: I concede that the STUC does not support Scottish independence but I wish to put on record—and this can be confirmed by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson)—that a call for full Scottish industrial powers for the Scottish Assembly was made at that meeting by the General Secretary of the STUC.
Many hon. Members may argue that debate on such a vast constitutional measure should not be curtailed, and I have much sympathy for that view, but I cannot see how else the Bill can be considered. To decide otherwise would be to leave the whole measure open to gerrymandering and time-wasting. In spite of his 20 interruptions on the last Bill, the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) was brief and to the point. The same cannot be said for the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse). Did the hon. Gentleman really need two speeches, each of more than an hour, plus several shorter ones, to put his point across? Did the House need 98 hours and five minutes to get to page 4 of the Mark I devolution Bill and hour upon hour of debate on the Title of the Bill? I suggest not.
This House has an excellent record in granting independence to what has been left of the diminishing Empire but it has an appalling record of sorting out the constitutional tangle between the member nations of the British Isles. From Gladstone and "Home Rule All Round" there has been a continuous story of failure, and the heavy hand of British nationalism has never been far below the surface in this House. I ask hon. Members to reflect on how long the subject has been in the headlines in Scotland. Some of my hon. Friends would argue that there has been a continuing fight for Scottish freedom since 1707. My first political memory is of the Scottish Labour Party manifesto of 1945 which said that the party had two objectives: the first the defeat of Japan, and the second the establishment of a Scots Parliament. For 10 solid years, almost to the day, since my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) won Hamilton, the return of power to the Scottish people has been high on the political agenda.
Against that background the debate on the first devolution Bill was confused and obtuse. The right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) talked about a Fijian who had Scottish blood because his great-grandfather had eaten two Scottish missionaries. The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) said he was not making a partisan speech but trying to speak for the ordinary people of England whether they vote Labour, Liberal, Conservative or Scottish Nationalist.
It is time to stop this nonsense. Much of it is offensive, though born out of ignorance, I am sure. The only way to ensure a proper debate on where Scotland is going is through the guillotine.
Let me draw attention to the publicly stated views of the other parties in this House on devolution. The Labour Party has promised a Scottish Parliament with a budget of £2 billion. In its overstamps and advertisements immediately before the last General Election, it said that
the Labour Party does not make promises which it cannot keep.
I know that this poses difficulties for the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer), I know that the NEC of the Labour Party did not consider the matter in detail, I know that the party's Executive Committee in Scotland was dragooned into taking a decision a few days before the election was called and I know that the Labour Party position was born out of expediency and the need to hold seats north of the border. But I cannot help hon. Members opposite on that. They have made a firm pledge to the Scots people. That is why they are in Government. That promise must be kept.
The Conservatives were the first into the devolution stakes with the declaration of Perth, but their position is now one of vast confusion. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) went to his electorate in October 1974 promising an Assembly, a Scottish budget and a Scottish oil fund. He has now done a total turnabout and cannot hope to save both his faces.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) has had some fun with oil. He has promised a hypothecation of part of the North Sea oil revenues to built a new Hampden Park

and part to build a new Scottish Opera House. This is an indication of the populism that is current in Tory ranks in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman cannot hypothecate the Scottish oil revenues and simultaneously vote against the Scottish Assembly and a Scottish budget.
On the last occasion, the Liberals voted against the guillotine. They wanted a Scottish Bill with tax-raising powers and electoral reform. I see precious little sign of those provsions in this Bill. I believe that a sensible judicial review, an end to the governor-general powers and a five-year rolling budget would have been achieved in any case. The Liberals are simply a party that, offered a choice between hung today and hung a year from now, have decided to hang on for as long as possible.
The Ulster Unionists have a key role in the vote. I do not know what their game is, apart from upping the ante with other parties, but I have a good deal of sympathy with their position. I sympathise with them because Ulster is under-represented in this House, its Parliament has gone and it is having the single transferable vote system forced upon it for EEC elections, but my plea to the Ulstermen is that they should not stop Scotland getting what it wants and has been promised only because Ulster is not getting what it wants. Surely the best guarantee of a return of devolution to Northern Ireland is through a Scottish Assembly. By precept and by example, Ulster will get what Scotland has been promised.
We have seen many false dawns in this House, the most spectacular of which was the Second Reading on the Mark I devolution Bill. That was killed off by an unholy alliance in the House. I hope that this Bill will not meet the same fate tonight.
Mr. Alex Kitson was present at the meeting between the STUC and SNP on Monday. He said that the Prime Minister had made it obvious to the PLP and to the Labour Party Conference at Blackpool that the guillotine vote would be a vote of confidence. Can the Minister who is to reply to the debate confirm whether this is so?
If there is no guillotine there will be no devolution. Only through the guillotine can the promises that were freely made to the people of Scotland be enacted.

5.44p.m.

Mr. Dennis Canavan (West Stirling-shire): No one can seriously argue that Parliament has not spent enough time discussing devolution. More has been said and written on this subject than on almost any other political issue in recent times.
In 1969, the Kilbrandon Commission was set up, and it reported four years later. Since then, we have had a series of debates and motions in the House. In June 1974, there was a consultative document, followed, in September, by a White Paper. In February 1975, we had a two-day debate and there was another White Paper issued in November that year. We had a four-day debate in January 1976, with another White Paper in August and, at last, the introduction of the Scotland and Wales Bill in November that year. We spent four days on the Second Reading of that ill-fated Bill, 11 days in Committee and another day on a timetable motion similar to this guillotine. In July this year, there was another White Paper and a statement by the Lord President. This week, we have already had a day each on the Scotland Bill and the Wales Bill and the proposed timetable allots 17 days for the remaining stages of the Scotland Bill.
That adds up to a total of 24 days' debate so far—more than 160 hours. In addition, the topic has been discussed in Private Members' time, in Consolidated Fund Bills and so on, and in various Adjournment debates. I do not see how anyone can seriously argue that we have not spent enough time debating devolution.
The hypocrites on the Conservative Benches claim that we are stifling democratic discussion. What nonsense! They should look at their own record, including their indecent haste in rushing us into the Common Market and the way in which measures such as the Industrial Relations Act and the Housing Finance Act were pushed through with a guillotine and without the wholehearted approval of the British people.

Mr. Younger: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of any instance in which a guillotine was introduced before the start of a Committee stage?

Mr. Canavan: My right hon. Friend the Lord President has dealt with that point. We have to take into account not

just Monday's debate but all the time that we spent discussing the Scotland and Wales Bill in the last Session and all the other debates that have taken place on the principle of devolution. The Bill is very similar in most respects to the Scotland and Wales Bill and takes account of many of the points made in previous debates.
It is sheer cant and hypocrisy for Tories to object that there has not been enough time for debate. I have a great deal of sympathy for the proposal of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) that we should timetable most legislation. Far too much time is spent in this House on filibustering. We have too many words and not enough action to convert the words into legislation for the benefit of the people.
We can expect opposition from the Tories, but I should like to consider the position of my hon. Friends who have expressed doubts and reservations, particularly in regard to how they will vote. Some claim, perhaps with some justification, that we have spent far too much time debating constitutional issues and that, particularly on this side of the House and in the movement that we represent, we should not be overconcerned simply with the machinery of government but rather with the decisions which that machinery is supposed to be taking to provide better jobs, to tackle unemployment and the problems arising from inflation, bad housing and so on.
However, although I have some sympathy with my colleagues who claim that we have spent too much time debating devolution, they are sadly mistaken if they think that they can kill devolution by voting against the guillotine. They may kill the Bill, as they killed the Scotland and Wales Bill, but they will not kill devolution as an issue. It will come back to the House again and again until this place has the common sense and the guts to respond to the legitimate aspirations of the people of Scotland. It is important, too, to realise that their aspirations may change through time. The more reluctant the House becomes to respond to their aspirations the more that we shall drive people into the camp of the separatists, represented by the SNP.
I urge my hon. Friends to think carefully, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury


(Mr. Cunningham), who said that there are some who imagine that there are three options—namely, the status quo, devolution and complete independence. He said that the middle one was not on. I disagree. I think that it is the first that is not on. The status quo is no longer a tenable position in Scotland. I only wish that my hon. Friend, who I understand was born and brought up in Scotland in a town not far from where I was born and brought up, would visit my constituency and his native homeland more often. If he did, he would be able to gauge more accurately the feeling of the Scottish people.
I remind my hon. Friends that we are talking not just about the wishes of the Scottish people but about the wishes of the whole Labour movement. It is untrue for the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) to say that the Labour movement has been bulldozed. It has not. There has been democratic discussion and debate at successive Labour Party Conferences. We have now reached the position when the Labour Party, the Scottish Council of the Labour Party, the TUC and the STUC are all in favour of devolution but utterly reject separation. I appeal to my hon. Friends, especially those who are always crowing about keeping manifesto commitments, to support the Government tonight in order to keep this manifesto commitment.
There is one more reason for supporting the guillotine—namely, that this is probably the last chance that this Parliament will have of giving meaningful devolution to the people of Scotland. The proposals within the Bill make provision for a referendum. I appeal to my hon. Friends to take cognizance of that fact. We have already had my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) describing his stance on Second Reading. He said that he would support the Government on Second Reading and on the guillotine motion but would campaign for a "No" vote in the referendum. I disagree with the stance that he says he will take in the referenlum campaign. However, I believe that it is an honourable course of action to take.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said that that is not the parliamentary way of solving things. Well, democracy did not begin in this place—

Mr. Powell: It did.

Mr. Canavan: —and it will not end in this place. Despite the fact that my hon. Friend's course of action may not be the orthodox parliamentary way of solving the problem, nevertheless it is a democratic way of solving the problem. I applaud my hon. Friend for putting forward that option to some of my hon. Friends.
Let us respond to the wishes of the people. Let us give the people the opportunity of expressing an opinion. This is a historic opportunity. It is probably the last opportunity that this Parliament will have of responding to the wishes of the people of Scotland. The time for talking has finished. Now is the time for action, and the best action is to support the Government tonight.

5.54 p.m.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) does not appear to recognise that federalism and devolution are completely separate matters. The trouble with the Bill is that it completely rules out the federal or quasi-federal option. That greatly increases the risk of confrontation between the Assembly and the House of Commons.
It is no coincidence that in 1706 the Scots Commissioners asked for a federal constitution. They were refused it at that time, but something along those lines was echoed in 1949, when more than 2 million people in Scotland signed the Covenant. The key sentence was as follows:
We pledge ourselves in all loyalty to the Crown and within the framework of the United Kingdom to do everything in our power to secure for Scotland a Parliament with adequate legislative authority on Scottish affairs.
Some hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr, Cook), who is one of my constituents and who made a tremendously good speech on Monday evening, believe that this issue can be killed with the referendum. I am not sure that it is right to make the Bill a hostage to fortune in that way.
It must be said that very few people write to us on this subject. I have not received more than a dozen letters on


devolution since becoming a Member of this place. Half of them are one way and half the other. However, the fact that nearly two-thirds of the Scottish electorate signed the Covenant in 1949 is a sign that the problem is unlikely to go away. A way of dealing with the matter that would preserve the Union and make for better government in a way acceptable to all parts of the United Kingdom is not to rule out the federal option but to consider a fully federal constitution with a Bill of Rights and a supreme court.
I know that the Lord President rules that out at present, but if the Bill fails I suggest that the setting up of a constitutional conference to consider all the options from Douglas-Home to federalism should be considered very seriously.
It is a substantial objection to the Bill that in practice we shall have virtually no freedom of choice. It is this Bill or nothing. The House and Parliament has helped establish approximately 30 constitutions throughout the world, and in virtually every case there is a constitutional conference beforehand. By taking a short cut and removing that process it seems that an unacceptable risk is being taken. I suggest that we would be much wiser not to rush constitutional reform but to ensure that we get it right.

5.57 p.m.

Mr. Eric Moonman: There are two or three issues that have emerged in the debate that require some clarification. More than one speaker has suggested that the difficulties that resulted from the Mark I Scotland and Wales Bill were the result of filibustering. I asked my right hon. Friend the Lord President earlier this afternoon whether that was so and he reassured the House that, whatever disagreements we may have had on the Bill, there was no question of filibustering by hon. Members. Those who suggest that filibustering took place must have missed the many occasions when there was a real creative attempt in discussion to work through a complex Bill.
If we are to believe what others have said this afternoon, it seems that this Bill is an improvement. The Leader of the Liberal Party, the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles

(Mr. Steel), said that it is a considerable advance over the previous Bill. I think that the right hon. Gentleman made too many claims for the present Bill, but he did itemise many things that he now sees that were not in the original Bill.
Whether we accept one view or another, it is important that one myth should be dealt with immediately. A great deal of concern was expressed and requests were made for clarification when the previous Bill was considered, but it is my view—apparently it is my right hon. Friend's view—that there was no question of filibustering. The need for the guillotine is based on grounds other than filibustering.
My right hon. Friend did not say precisely what these other grounds are. I join with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who made a very fine speech, when he made a personal plea to my right hon. Friend to withdraw this guillotine Motion. My right hon. Friend has a responsibility over and above the work that he is seen to do within the context of his political party. As the Lord President, surely he has the need to care for and nurture the feelings and views of Members from all parts of the House about the way in which Bills are presented and the guillotine used. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that he has not protected the interests of many of us who have the gravest anxiety about the way in which this House is now proceeding.
I respect my right hon. Friend's knowledge of and his competence in Parliament. All that is on record. However, we must judge him as he is now and not necessary by what he said five years, 10 years or 15 years ago. He is the man in the driving seat, and he should have some regard to the anxieties of many Members. He should proceed with a degree of sensitivity.
I am bound to say that my right hon. Friend should take into account that many of us have been caused some distress. Having given him the opportunity to go ahead with the Second Readings on Monday and Tuesday, he should have had the understanding, intelligence and sensitivity to say "I am not prepared to let these bills go to a guillotine." There is no reason why he should not have said that after the successful outcome


of Monday and Tuesday nights. He could say it even now.
Surely we have given the Bill a chance to be debated but we do not want the discussion to be put into a straitjacket. Although there have been different interpretations of what a guillotine is likely to achieve, it nevertheless means that we are placed in a tight time limit. It will limit areas of the subject. It will make it impossible to explore some of the complications of the Bill and its many implications for England.
I am reminded of how much we need the discussion, of how much we need the time, by what happened yesterday. I mean no disrespect to the Chair when I say that it was a classic example of the fact that the English connection in this subject of devolution has been lost. I understand that many of my colleagues from Wales wanted to speak yesterday, and I am impressed by the fact that the House heard the representatives of Montgomery, Newport, Pontypool, Merioneth, Barry, Aberdare, Pembroke, Swansea, East, Carmarthen, Bedwellty and Wrexham. We are glad that they were heard. Indeed, the House was addressed by many more Welsh Members, but I cannot pronounce the name of some of the other constituencies.
There is an English interest in the subject. When will the English association be brought in? Although the Scottish National Party Members were inclined to mock before the time previously taken in the earlier Bill, we did need that precious time because the English people, through their parliamentary representatives, had to explore the subject in some detail. I am not prepared to accept the SNP's interpretation of the needs of devolution in Scotland. We in England must discuss devolution with our colleagues in the House. It is very important to remember the English connection when we allocate time for the debate. It should not have the limits that a guillotine motion imposes.
I am not impressed by the argument that perhaps all future legislation should be timetabled. I should be more impressed by those who advance that argument if they were prepared to say that every piece of legislation should be so treated now and did not concentrate on the Scotland and Wales Bills, which have considerable constitutional implications.
In the past I have supported the use of the guillotine as a legitimate device when there are serious political implications and the two sides of the House have an understandable confrontation. This is not such a case. It differs from previous Bills that have been subject to such action, first, because a major constituional change is proposed. Secondly, although it is a Government Bill, neither the Government nor the Opposition are united in their support for it or in their opposition. Many of those who have listened carefully to the arguments and have gone into the Government Lobby have nevertheless had the gravest reservations about the value of the Bill. The uncertainty extends to the English, who, despite all that has been said, have not really been consulted.
One of my hon. Friends said that devolution was a major commitment by the Labour Party and had been adequately dealt with by the 1976 annual conference. I attended that conference. The debate lasted for 52 minutes, and my right hon. Friend took about 24 of them. Surely that is not what is meant by serious consideration within a major party.
The case for the guillotine has not been made out. Let us not confuse the issue. Those who are anxious to share in decision-making in Scotland do not necessarily want this form of devolution. There is a natural desire throughout the United Kingdom to have a bigger say in how decisions are made, not only in local government but in industry. It is a mood that we in Parliament all understand. Those who are opposed to the Bill are not necessarily opposed to the grand concept of sharing in decision-making.
There are certainly more urgent matters for which the House should give time, but not at the expense of a full and free discussion of the serious constitutional issues involved in the devolution Bills. I again appeal to my right hon. Friend that even at this late stage it would be sensible for him to recognise that there is no point in having the sort of debates that we have had this week if he fails to take into account the fears and anxieties expressed about this Bill. The case put by those who support my right hon. Friend should worry him.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. George Gardiner: I shall not take up in detail the points


made by the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman), because I wish to be brief. However, as another English Member I am glad that an English voice is now coming into this guillotine debate.
I must add my voice to the expressions of total abhorrence of my right hon. and hon. Friends over the new procedure that is being established tonight in handling such legislation. When the Lord President was asked when last a major constitutional Bill had had a guillotine introduced before the Committee stage had even begun, we watched a great deal of twisting and turning at the Dispatch Box. In the end he came up with the Representation of the People Bill, which he told us was passed in the 1931–32 Session. What a ridiculous comparison that is with a measure of the kind that we are discussing, which seeks fundamentally to change the constitutional balance in this Chamber and to set up another sub-Parliament in one part of the United Kingdom!
The unique feature of this Bill is that it combines a great number of big constitutional principles with a great deal of important detail. It is this that makes the timetable proposed by the Lord President, of 17 days for the whole of the Committee, Report and Third Reading stages, inadequate.
Let me list some of the big questions that must be dealt with in Committee. Some were mentioned in the debate on Monday, particularly what has come to be described as the West Lothian question—the rôle of Scottish MPs here. I shall not go into that in detail, because it was debated exhaustively on Monday and the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) deployed the argument very effectively earlier today. The argument will not go away but will recur throughout. It will be no use brushing it aside and squeezing it out in Committee under a strict timetable.
Further, there is the question, which I accept is different, of the strength of representation in this House by Scottish Members. When the Scotland and Wales Bill was before us we had a discussion on whether a Speaker's Conference should be set up to look into the question. That is another issue that is by no means dead. If such questions are squeezed out of the

Committee stage discussion proposed by the Lord President under a guillotine, he is lighting a fuse that before many years are out will ignite an explosion that could blow this whole place to pieces.
There are other big questions, such as that of the Assembly itself, its form, its size, its term of office, whether we should put some limitations on the procedures that it adopts, whether we should allow it to pass legislation in one day or should make more stipulations in that respect There is the big question of the method by which elections to the Assembly are to be conducted. Many right hon. and hon. Members—I am not among them—are concerned to see a system of proportional representation. That is a major question that will still demand good and thorough debate in Committee.
There is the whole question of the amendments and proposals concerning the executive, its size and rôle. There are questions of the remuneration of Members of both bodies. In this unstable situation there is still a demand for a Bill of Rights to protect those who are caught up in these proceedings. Most of these issues were never even reached during the Committee stage on the Scotland and Wales Bill.
There is also the whole area of the financial provisions, the block grant, how we are to survey the use to which the money that we raise is to be put, how the grant is to be negotiated and fixed, how the position of the English regions is to be protected when it comes to the allocation of resources to them, not only the English regions, but Wales if, in any eventual referendum, the people of Wales vote not to have the provisions of the Wales Bill applied to them.

Mr. Henderson: Will the hon. Gentleman, having given us this catalogue and obviously having thought out the matter in detail, tell us how many days he thinks would be appropriate for discussion of the Bill as an alternative to the Government's proposal?

Mr. Gardiner: I am prepared to answer that question, but, with the hon. Gentleman's permission, I shall do so at the point at which I was planning to mention it, after I have detailed more of these points which must be exhaustively discussed in Committee.
There is the question of the referendum—its timing, whether there is to be one or more than one question and the form of that question or questions and the preamble. The Lord President said that he was anxious to proceed on a basis that commanded support in all sections of the House.
There is the question, posed by some Labour Members on Monday and today, of what would constitute a valid turnout in such a referendum. Are we to take a 30 per cent. turnout as adequate, or are we to specify something over 50 per cent.? We must go into that question very carefully.
There is still the question—it has not gone away—whether this issue can be disposed of purely in a referendum of the Scottish people and, of course, in relation to the Wales Bill, of the Welsh people. There is still a demand throughout the United Kingdom for a referendum on legislation fundamentally affecting the whole of the United Kingdom. That issue has not gone away. It was not disposed of and pushed out of sight in the discussions that we had on the Scotland and Wales Bill. This matter must be raised again. If not, it will have to be raised exhaustively in other places.
Can all these matters really be covered adequately in a guillotined Committee stage debate of the length proposed? I shall come to the question posed by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) shortly.
There is the whole aspect of Orkney and Shetland, which is brought out very well in the amendment, of which the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) gave notice yesterday and which appears on the Order Paper today. That, again, is a matter of great constitutional significance. If the people of Orkney and Shetland decide that they do not wish the provisions of the Bill to take effect, they should be given the chance to opt out. Is that to be brushed aside in an hour's or a half-hour's debate while we are going through the limited time devoted to the referendum provisions in the Bill?
In passing I point out that the last referendum legislation—the Referendum Act 1975—in addition to its Second Reading, had two days in Committee and one day for its remaining stages. The complexities and questions raised by the

referendum proposed in this Bill are just as complicated as those. I cannot see discussion on the referendum proposed here taking any less time than the discussion on the referendum on the question of our membership of the European Community.
There is also the question of what is getting through under cover of the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), on a point of order on Monday, referred to Clause 35 which grants power to make changes in United Kingdom law consequential on legislation in the Scottish Assembly which could be rubber stamped in this House by a simple resolution on one day or even late at night. You, Mr. Speaker, in your ruling referred to the incidental effects of legislation effected in the Scottish Assembly. Many people in England and, indeed, in Wales—when Wales takes the chance, if it gets it, to opt out of the legislation—gravely fear these incidental effects. We feel that we are being offered a blank cheque to sign without being given any indication of how United Kingdom legislation of great importance in England and in the regions will be affected as a fall-out result of what is undertaken in the Scottish Assembly.
There is a lot of small print at the end of the Bill. I doubt whether many hon. Members have yet had a chance to go through and work out the implications of all that is printed there. I shall pull out one or two examples in the brief time available to me.
There is the proposal to break up the British Waterways Board. That is a matter of grave concern to the Inland Waterways Association, some of whose friends and supporters have already tabled amendments to protect it. Surely a matter of that kind is worthy of at least one day's debate in this House.
There are similar effects on forestry, but even more on the British Tourist Authority. There are proposals that it should cease to discharge certain functions and that it should be re-constituted in a way which many tourist interests in England believe would gravely damage tourism in a number of our regions. The first body to object was the Northumbria Tourist Board. Other tourist boards came in as well, including that for South-East England, which includes the area, that I represent.
Surely these matters are normally worthy of a day's debate and a proper Committee stage discussion: or are we simply to nod them through the back door in a severely guillotined Committee stage discussion on a Bill of this kind? As an English Member representing a constituency in the South-East, I am not prepared to accept such a situation. I cannot see how the guillotine provisions spelt out in the motion could possibly allow sufficient discussion for all these matters.
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East asked how many days I thought would be adequate. I should like to put the question in another way.

Mr. Henderson: Answer.

Mr. Gardiner: Do the Government think that in one bite they can deal with a Bill which raises so many issues of principle and contains in the small print so many matters of detail affecting existing legislation of the United Kingdom? I suggest that it cannot be done in one bite. If there is to be a chance of getting it through, they will have to be far less ambitious in the target that they set.
English and Welsh Members of Parliament are being asked to agree to guillotine proper discussion of a Bill which would let through all manner of matters which are vital to their constituencies and regions. I predict that if, by any misfortune, the motion should be carried tonight, it will not be very long before they all bitterly rue the day.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler), whom I am about to call, to limit himself to three minutes in order that we may have time for the winding-up speeches.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: I shall break with the tradition of the House and be exceedingly brief.
I want to make two simple points, but, before doing so, I should like to allude to what was said by the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner). The hon. Gentleman talked about the necessity of considering in detail the rules for a referendum. I was the Minister partly

responsible for the Referendum Act 1975. I ask that we be preserved from the agony of considering those rules again and again whenever we are to have a referendum. I certainly do not strongly believe in the desirability of referendums, but, if we are to have them, let us at least stick to the same rules.
The first of the two points that I want to make is that before we look at the debates that we had last year we should look at the seven days in 13 months that we spent debating devolution in this House. We debated it on 3rd November 1975. We debated it again on 31st July when the Select Committee on the Bill began at 8.53 p.m. and ended at 4.15 the following morning. We debated it for four days in January 1976.
I have checked those who spoke in these debates. I must say that we have some remarkable Rip Van Winkles in the House. I did not find in the lists of those who spoke the hon. Member for Reigate; nor did I find my hon. Friends the Members for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps) and Basildon (Mr. Moonman). They did not speak in those debates and it is therefore a little late to complain of the time that we are being given for debate.

Dr. Colin Phipps: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that no one will interrupt the hon. Gentleman, because I know that he is about to sit down.

Mr. Fowler: I concede that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and others have borne the brunt of the fray, but it ill-becomes those who did not speak in these debates to complain today.

Dr. Phipps: rose—

Mr. Fowler: I shall not give way to my hon. Friend.
There is no doubt that if we do not carry the guillotine motion, we shall adopt a new principle in the House. It will mean that it is impossible to carry a substantial constitutional provision in this country, because there will be endless debate, which will ensure that it cannot be passed in one Session. That would be a deplorable situation. I hope that the House will pass this and the succeeding motion with a resounding majority.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. George Younger: The excellence of this debate argues in favour of short speeches. I hope that the House will learn from at.
We are not discussing the merits of the Bill itself. It is primarily a House of Commons matter. We are asked to decide whether we wish discussion to be curtailed according to the Government's decision. We are deciding that and nothing else. This is underlined by the fact that the views in the House go across party lines. It is not a partisan matter. I hope that everyone will vote carefully according to what he feels and what he believes is best for the House.
It is not part of the Opposition's argument to say that there should never be a timetable motion on any Bill. I have never said that and no hon. Members on this side of the House would make that case. It is up to the Government of the day to justify any application that it makes for a timetable motion on a major Bill.
The Leader of the House never looked more uncomfortable and uncertain of himself than when he was trying to justify this motion. We all know his history and that he has advocated the importance of hon. Members' liberty. We should have brought a birthday cake for the Leader of the House. This is the afternoon when he reaches double figures. This is the tenth motion for a timetable that he has produced.
If the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying so, I was not impressed by his argument. First, he could have argued—but he did not—that the measure had been filibustered in the past. He made no such charge, neither in his speech the other day nor today. Therefore, there is no case for the guillotine motion on the basis that discussion has been overlong, tedious or repetitious. I do not argue that case. The debates on the Bill have been effective and good.
Secondly, the Leader of the House could have argued that the Bill is so simple, obvious, clear and well construed that it does not need much debate. To do him justice, he did not argue that. Therefore, the Bill stands as being extremely complicated, far-reaching, important and difficult. That argument has not been made this afternoon and we are faced with a timetable motion on a Bill which

is admitted by all to be far-reaching, important and complicated. It is a Bill which the majority do not say has been obstructed by excessive discussion or anything else. The charge against the Government is that they are producing this motion without a shred of normal justification for it.
What is the effect of the guillotine? From what has been said I do not believe that it is clear to all hon. Members. I do not believe that it is all that important that the time for discussion on such a Bill is so limited, although it is undesirable for such a long and complicated Bill. The vital point is that once there is a guillotine, the Government of the day and the Ministers in charge of the Bill have no incentive whatever to make any concession to any views or on any amendment at any time. That is the important point.
I say to those on both sides of the House and on both sides of the argument who have doubts about the Bill, its practicality, its drafting and its other aspects, that if we pass the motion it means not only that we shall have our discussions curtailed but, unless the Government are very exceptional, that there will be no concessions to any argument at any stage of the Committee. That is what sticks in my throat.
The right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) made a plea for timetable motions to be attached to all Bills. If all Bills were guillotined there would be no point in having an Opposition, except in a formal sense. Unless the Opposition have a chance of demonstrating that a Bill is not fit to be passed, they have no job to do.
To all Members who have strong feelings and doubts about the provisions and details in the Bill I say that they must face up to the fact that if the motion is passed, this afternoon will be the last afternoon of any meaningful debate which has a chance of altering anything of substance in the Bill. The House must assert itself against the party system. I have no hesitation in advising the House that it would be disastrous if such a complicated constitutional measure had a timetable motion attached to it.
It is not as if there is a shortage of time. About 30 weeks of the Session lie ahead of us. Even the most enthusiastic supporter of the Government could


not say that the Queen's Speech is so full of vital measures that nothing could be dropped to make room for the devolution Bills. Let us vote so that the House may debate this subject with an open mind.
The Government are not only anxious to the point of concern to get the Bill through as quickly as possible but they dare not face the reality of the arguments that will be made against the Bill. They dare not face them because they know what happened the last time, when the Bill had many supporters at the outset but few when it finished when last Session's guillotine motion came along. I therefore have no hesitation in asking the House to look at this matter as a House of Commons matter and not as a party matter, to look at it as a matter for which individual hon. Members will have to answer.
I conclude with a reference to the referendum issue. I hope that no one will think that he can take action this afternoon with which he is not happy on the grounds that a referendum will put everything right. I have two points to make to hon. Members who believe that they can. No one can say that the referendum will go as he thinks it will. All sorts of things can happen. What do those hon. Members plan to say if they travel the country, as I understand is intended, recommending their constituents to vote "No" when the first question to them will be "Why did you vote 'Yes' to the Bill?"
I therefore say that this is the time above all others to be a House of Commons man rather than a party man, and I hope that we shall throw out the guillotine motion for what it is.

6.30 p.m.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) is a pleasant man, but I find it hard to take even from him the notion that the House should adopt an independent House of Commons spirit on this issue when he represents the party which has imposed a three-line Whip on its Members tonight—[Hon. Members: "So have the Government."] The difference is that I am not making sanctimonious appeals to the independent nature of hon. Members.
While we are on the subject may I say that I very much regret what has happened to the hon. Member for Ayr by which his association with the urban guerrilla of Scottish politics has led him to abandon the commitment to devolution which he has had for many years. He remembers well how he has shared platforms with me when arguing for devolution. Even the urban guerrilla had to declare at the end of his speech that his party was in favour of the principle of devolution.
The speech by the hon. Member for Ayr was suitable for someone who opposes the whole concept of devolution; but he does not. Just what the Conservative Party supports is far from clear. I know and the Conservatives know that 75 per cent. of the Conservative Party is totally opposed to the principle of devolution—I suppose, genuinely and sincerely. I think they are sincerely wrong. What happens to the other 25 per cent., however, is important because they have some perception of the need to maintain, enhance and improve the unity of the United Kingdom.
The main purpose of this debate is to justify the Government's timetable motion. The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) gave us lurid descriptions of electric chairs, the end of our liberties and the end of the trusteeship of Parliament, along with all the cant that is trotted out during every guillotine debate. It is trotted out by both major parties and has to be listened to, and that means that most timetable debates are deadly affairs, because many hon. Members find them too much to take. They find it difficult to listen to the parallels and analogies drawn by the Front Benches. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) about this matter, although this Bill is, I am glad to say, the only thing I agree with him about.
The main charge by the Opposition Front Bench was that there was something unusual, peculiar, undemocratic and unfair about introducing a timetable motion before we had embarked upon Committee stage. What is regarded as fair and reasonable? Apparently, if 10 days are allowed to go by and then the timetable motion is introduced, which would necessarily leave much shorter time


for discussion, that is fair and reasonable. I ask the Conservatives who think that there is something in that argument to read the speech of the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) who, as my right hon. Friend the Lord President reminded us the other day, is always here, whether physically in his place or not, as a reminder to the Conservative Party of some of the views it once held. He made it clear that he felt it necessary to have an ordered and structured discussion of the Bill.
If we were to allow the Bill to run on without a timetable motion for several more days it would be a reasonable assumption that the Committee stage would take the same shape as the Committee stage of the Scotland and Wales Bill. We know also that, if we were to proceed at the pace we were achieving then, we would pass this Bill some time in the 1990s. We spent 10 days on just three clauses of the earlier Bill. That is a reasonable assumption, and I defy the Conservatives to say that it would not happen on this occasion. Obviously therefore, if that were to happen the Bill would not pass in this Session. The Government would then come forward with a timetable motion at a later stage and there would be less time for detailed discussion and scrutiny of the clauses and schedules.
The sensible thing for the House of Commons to do is to examine the Bill carefully, to test Ministers on the arguments they put forward. Hon. Members can do that only in an organised way if there is some structure to the discussion, and that is what the guillotine motion provides.
I know that some Governments have been unreasonable in the past. The hon. Member for Ayr said that the trouble with timetable motions was that once they were passed Ministers would not give way on points made to them. He said that the Bill would therefore, be unchanged, and the House of Commons would have been denied some of its fundamental rights. The only example in recent times of any Bill which went through the House of Commons and the House of Lords—that great guardian of our liberties—without being changed from Second Reading was the European Communities Bill. Who were the Government who took that attitude to that

Parliament? Who was the Chief Whip who tried to defend it by saying that it was a decision of the House? We were not born yesterday. That clear decision was taken by a Conservative Government. They resolved not to accept any amendments in either House. I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire wishes to deny that.

Mr. Pym: I want to ask the Minister what changes he has in mind for the Scotland Bill.

Mr. Smith: I notice that the right hon. Gentleman was not prepared to deny the charge that his Government had deliberately decided not to accept amendments.
The House of Commons must have the capacity to act as well as to argue. We are not a talking shop to embark on endless discussion of interesting points about Bills. We are a legislative Chamber and we have an obligation to come to decisions and to act upon them. It is not as though devolution was hurried into the House of Commons last week and was being rushed through in some fleeting way. Devolution has been under discussion in Scotland and Wales since 1968, if not before. The present proposals began to take shape with the report of the Royal Commission on the Constitution.
This is a difficult issue for Conservative Members, because they have been calling for a constitutional commission without having any proposals to put to it if it were set up. They refer to the need for us to discuss these matters, but I doubt the practical possibilities of their meeting us and doing so.
Essentially the Bill is designed to bring into the constitution of the United Kingdom a recognition of the Scottish dimension, that Scottish dimension that is reflected in Scotland's culture, history and its institutions, way of life and outlook —[Interruption.] The fact that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) says "Rubbish", even though he proposed such an assembly in October 1974, shows his insensitivity to the Scottish mood and to the idioms and way of life of Scotland.
Equally, we must preserve the unity of the United Kingdom. I am a passionate defender of the unity of the United Kingdom and of stopping false differences


arising between the peoples who make up the United Kingdom. I want to seek to strengthen it as well. When Opposition Members talk about maintaining the unity of the United Kingdom, they are unnecessarily defensive in the phraseology that they use. I would prefer that we sought to enhance the unity of the United Kingdom and to improve it.
I believe that a unity that is founded on a recognition of the diversity of the different peoples who make up this United Kingdom, which does not try to put them all in the same legislative straitjacket, and which allows other institutions to flourish as well as this House of Commons, has a much greater chance of being maintained. Of course, that is very much a matter of judgment. But the Conservative Party has not even got to the elementary stage of making up its mind about even the framework in which it would reach decisions about it. Therefore, it has fallen to a Labour Government to put devolution high on the political agenda.
Last Session we brought forward the Scotland and Wales Bill. I very much regretted the failure of the House to pass it on that occasion. We have brought forward again, right at the start of this Session, the Scotland Bill and the Wales Bill, and both Bills have been approved in principle by substantial majorities of

this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come off it."] There is no need to "come off" anything, because the majorities were 44 and 31.

Mr. John Ryman: rose—

Mr. Smith: I have no intention of answering hon. Members who have not even attended most of the debate.
The matter before us is whether the House of Commons has the capacity to act on this occasion. I believe that we have a responsibility to make sure that the Bill is properly, carefully and adequately discussed, but at the same time a decision must be taken. I believe that the House must now follow up the agreement which it gave to the Bill in principle on Monday night, with a convincing majority, by making sure that the timetable motion is carried tonight.
If the motion is carried, I believe that this will be one of the most significant days for the history of Scotland and for the history of this United Kingdom. I hope that tonight the House of Commons will rise to the challenge presented to it with some imagination and some perception of the real forces at work in this country.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 313, Noes 287.

Division No. 9]
AYES
[6.42 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund


Anderson, Donald
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Dempsey, James


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Campbell, Ian
Doig, Peter


Armstrong, Ernest
Canavan, Dennis
Dormand. J. D.


Ashley, Jack
Cant, R. B.
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Ashton, Joe
Carmichael, Neil
Duffy, A. E. P.


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Carter, Ray
Dunn, James A.


Atkinson, Norman
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Dunnett, Jack


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cartwright, John
Eadie, Alex


Bain, Mrs. Margaret
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Edge, Geoff


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Clemitson, Ivor
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Haywood)
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)


Bates, Alf
Cohen, Stanley
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Bean, R. E.
Coleman, Donald
English, Michael


Beith, A. J.
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Concannon, J. D.
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Bidwell, Sydney
Corbett, Robin
Evans, John (Newton)


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)


Boardman, H.
Crawford, Douglas
Faulds, Andrew


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Crawshaw, Richard
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Cronin, John
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Cryer, Bob
Flannery, Martin


Bradley, Tom
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Davidson, Arthur
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Ford, Ben


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Forrester, John


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)


Buchan, Norman
Deakins, Eric
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N 'w 'd)


Buchanan, Richard
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Freud, Clement




Garrett, John (Norwich S)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


George, Bruce
Mackintosh, John P.
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Gilbert, Dr John
Maclennan, Robert
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Ginsburg, David
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Golding, John
McNamara, Kevin
Sillars, James


Gould, Bryan
Madden, Max
Silverman, Julius


Gourlay, Harry
Magee, Bryan
Skinner, Dennis


Graham, Ted
Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)
Small, William


Grant, John (Islington C)
Mahon, Simon
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Grocott, Bruce
Marks, Kenneth
Snape, Peter


Hamilton, W. W. (Central File)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Spriggs, Leslie


Hardy, Peter
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stallard, A. W.


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Steel, Rt Hon David


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Maynard, Miss Joan
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Meacher, Michael
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Hatton, Frank
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Stoddart, David


Hayman, Mrs Heiene
Mikardo,Ian
Stott, Roger


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Strang, Gavin


Heffer, Eric S.
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Henderson, Douglas
Mitchell, Austin
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Hooley, Frank
Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, Itchen)
Swain, Thomas


Hooson, Emlyn
Molloy, William
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Horam, John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Moyle, Roland
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Huckfield, Les
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Thompson, George


Hughes, Rt Hon C (Anglesey)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Newens, Stanley
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Noble, Mike
Tierney, Sydney


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Oakes, Gordon
Tinn, James


Hunter, Adam
Ogden, Eric
Tomlinson, John


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
O'Halloran, Michael
Tomney, Frank


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Orbach, Maurice
Torney, Tom


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Tuck, Raphael


Janner, Greville
Ovenden, John
Urwin, T. W.


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Padley, Walter
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Palmer, Arthur
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


John, Brynmor
Pardoe, John
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Park, George
Ward, Michael


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Parker, John
Watkins, David


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Parry, Robert
Watkinson, John


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Pavitt, Laurie
Watt, Hamish


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Pendry, Tom
Weetch, Ken


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Penhaligon, David
Weitzman, David


Judd, Frank
Perry, Ernest
Wellbeloved, James


Kaufman, Gerald
Prescott, John
Welsh, Andrew


Kelley, Richard
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Kerr, Russell
Price, William (Rugby)
White, James (Pollok)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Radice, Giles
Whitehead, Phillip


Kinnock, Neil
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Whitlock, William


Lambie, David
Reid, George
Wigley, Dafydd


Lamborn, Harry
Richardson, Miss Jo
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Lamond, James
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Roberts, Gwllym (Cannock)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornh'ch)


Lee, John
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Robinson, Geoffrey
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Roderick, Caerwyn
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Lipton, Marcus
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Litterick, Tom
Rooker, J. W.
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Loyden, Eddie
Roper, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Luard, Evan
Rose, Paul B.
Woodall, Alec


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Woof, Robert


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


McCartney, Hugh
Rowlands, Ted
Young, David (Bolton E)


MacCormick, Iain
Sandelson, Neville



McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Sedgemore, Brian
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


McElhone, Frank
Selby, Harry
Mr. James Hamilton and 


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Sever, J.
Mr. Joseph Harper.


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Banks, Robert
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Adley, Robert
Bell, Ronald
Bottomley, Peter


Aitken, Jonathan
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)


Alison, Michael
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Benyon, W.
Bradford, Rev Robert


Arnold, Tom
Berry, Hon Anthony
Braine, Sir Bernard


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Biffen, John
Brittan, Leon


Awdry, Daniel
Biggs-Davison, John
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.


Baker, Kenneth
Blaker, Peter
Brooke, Peter







Brotherton, Michael
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Neubert, Michael


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Newton, Tony


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Haselhurst, Alan
Normanton, Tom


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hastings, Stephen
Nott, John


Buck, Antony
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Onslow, Cranley


Budgen, Nick
Hawkins, Paul
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Bulmer, Esmond
Hayhoe, Barney
Osborn, John


Burden, F. A.
Heseltine, Michael
Page, John (Harrow West)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hicks, Robert
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Carlisle, Mark
Higgins, Terence L.
Page, Richard (Workington)


Carson, John
Hodgson, Robin
Paisley, Rev Ian


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Holland, Philip
Parkinson, Cecil


Channon, Paul
Hordern, Peter
Pattie, Geoffrey


Churchill, W. S.
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Percival, Ian


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Phipps, Dr Colin


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Pink, R. Bonner


Clegg, Walter
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Cockcroft, John
Hurd, Douglas
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Cope, John
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Prior, Rt Hon James


Cormack, Patrick
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Corrie, John
Jessel, Toby
Raison, Timothy


Costain, A. P.
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Rathbone, Tim


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Critchley, Julian
Jopling, Michael
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Crouch, David
Joseph, Rt Hon. Sir Keith
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Crowder, F. P.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Dalyell, Tam
Kershaw, Anthony
Rhodes James, R.


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Kimball, Marcus
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Ridsdale, Julian


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Mrs Jill
Rifkind, Malcolm


Drayson, Burnaby
Lamont, Morman
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Dunlop, John
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Durant, Tony
Lawrence, Ivan
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Dykes, Hugh
Lawson, Nigel
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Leadbitter, Ted
Royle, Sir Anthony


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Sainsbury, Tim


Elliott, Sir William
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Emery, Peter
Lloyd, Ian
Scott, Nicholas


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Loveridge, John
Scott-Hopkins, James


Eyre, Reginald
Luce, Richard
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Fairgrieve, Russell
McCrindle, Robert
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Farr, John
McCusker, H.
Shepherd, Colin


Fell, Anthony
Macfarlane, Neil
Shersby, Michael


Finsberg, Geoffrey
MacGregor, John
Silvester, Fred


Fisher, Sir Nigel
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Sims, Roger


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Sinclair, Sir George


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fookes, Miss Janet
McNair-Wilson, P (New Forest)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Forman, Nigel
Madel, David
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Speed, Keith


Fox, Marcus
Marten, Neil
Spence, John


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Mates, Michael
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Fry, Peter
Mather, Carol
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Maude, Angus
Sproat, Iain


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Stainton, Keith


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Mawby, Ray
Stanbrook, Ivor


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stanley, John


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Mayhew, Patrick
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Mendelson, John
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stokes, John


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Goodhart, Philip
Mills, Peter
Tapsell, Peter


Goodhew, Victor
Miscampbell, Norman
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Goodlad, Alastalr
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Gorst, John
Moate, Roger
Tebbit, Norman


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Molyneaux, James
Temple-Morris, Peter


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Monro, Hector
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Montgomery, Fergus
Thomas, Rt Hon P (Hendon S)


Gray, Hamish
Moonman, Eric
Townsend, Cyril D.


Grieve, Percy
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Trotter, Neville


Griffiths, Eldon
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Grist, Ian
Morgan, Geraint
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Grylls, Michael
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Viggers, Peter


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Wakeham, John


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mudd, David
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Hannam, John
Neave, Airey
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)







Walker-Smith, Bt Hon Sir Derek
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Younger, Hon George


Wall, Patrick
Wiggin, Jerry



Walters, Dennis
Winterton, Nicholas
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Warren, Kenneth
Wood, Rt Hon Richard
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Weatherill, Bernard
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
Mr. Michael Roberts.


Wells, John

Question accordingly agreed to.

WALES BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

7.2 p.m.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining Proceedings on the Wales Bill:—

Allotted days for Committee, Report and Third Reading

1.—(1) The Proceedings in Committee on the Bill and the Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in eleven allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Eleven o'clock on the last of those days.

(2) For the purposes of Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the Proceedings in Committee on the Bill and to the Proceedings on Consideration of the Bill such parts of those days as the resolutions of the Business Committee may determine.

Report of Business Committee

2.—(1) The Business Committee shall report to the House their resolution—

(a) as to the Proceedings in Committee on the Bill and as to the allocation of time between those Proceedings and the Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill not later than the 28th day of November 1977; and
(b) as to the Proceedings on Consideration of the Bill and as to the allocation of time between those Proceedings and Proceedings on Third Reading not later than the seventh day on which the House sits after the day on which the Proceedings in Committee on the Bill are concluded.

(2) The resolutions in any report made under Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) may be varied by a further report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (1) above and whether or not the resolutions have been agreed to by the House.

Proceedings on going into Committee

3. When the Order of the Day is read for the House to resolve itself into Committee on the Bill, Mr. Speaker shall leave the chair without putting any Question, notwithstanding that notice of an Instruction has been given.

Conclusion of Proceedings in Committee

4. On the conclusion of the Proceedings in Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Order of Consideration

5. No Motion shall be made to change the order in which the Bill is to be considered

in Committee or on Consideration but the resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in that order.

Dilatory motions

6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, Proceedings on the Bill shall be made on an allotted day except by a Member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time on allotted days

7.—(1) On an allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the Proceedings on the Bill for one hour after Ten o'clock.

(2) Any period during which Proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and miportant matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the period under this paragraph.

(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the Proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the period during which Proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under this paragraph and the bringing to a conclusion of any Proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall also be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on the Motion.

Private Business

8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by the Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the Proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the completion of those Proceedings.

Conclusion of Proceedings

9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any Proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith proceed to put the following Questions (but no others), that is to say—

(a) the Question or Questions already proposed from the Chair, or necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a Second time, the Question that


the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(b) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a Member of the Government;
(c) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;
and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph shah not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If, at Seven o'clock on an allotted day, any Proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time have not been concluded, any Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) which, apart from this Order, would stand over to that time shall stand over until those Proceedings have been concluded.

(4) If a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over to Seven o'clock on an allotted day, or to any later time under sub-paragraph (3) above, the bringing to a conclusion of any Proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day at any hour falling after the beginning of the Proceedings on that Motion shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental Orders

10.—(1) The Proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph 9 above shall apply as if the Proceedings were Proceedings on the Bill on an allotted day.

(2) If on an allotted day on which any Proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee shall—

(a) prevent any Proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or

(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such Proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Re-committal

12.—(1) References in this Order to Proceedings on Consideration or Proceedings on Third Reading include references to Proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, re-committal.

(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

13. In this Order—
'allotted day' means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day, provided that a Motion for allotting time to the Proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day;
'Resolution of the Business Committee' means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

There is bound to be a certain sense of anticlimax after the very important vote which the House has reached on the first motion that we were discussing tonight. None the less, it is the obligation of this House to give very careful attention to the timetable motion in relation to the Wales Bill. It may be that in the course of the debate hon. Members will want to concentrate more upon the number of days to be allocated, on whether it is a fair amount having regard to the provisions of the Wales Bill, or to go back to some of the principles on which the House tends to treat timetable motions, although to a certain extent we have rehearsed these during the earlier motion.

In the previous legislation Scotland and Wales were taken together. At that time it was the proposal of the Government, as stated during the Second Reading debate on the Scotland and Wales Bill, that roughly 30 days in all should be allowed for the passage of the Bill. In the motion which we now propose, with 17 days for Scotland for the Committee stage, Report and Third Reading, and 11 days for Wales for the Committee Stage, Report and Third Reading, amounting in total to 28 days, and taking the two days that we have had on Second Reading already, we arrive at 30 days.


I think that in the circumstances that is a reasonable amount of time for the House in which to consider the matter carefully.

During the previous debate the only hon. Gentleman who raised the question of a reasonable allocation of time for the Scotland Bill was the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner), who asked rhetorically how many days would be suitable. Many hon. Members invited him to reply to that question and he was unable to give a reply to it. Having regard to the obligation of the House both to argue and to act, I do not think that it is possible to say that there is any way of achieving a perfect number of days for a discussion of all the stages, apart from such amendments as there may be to the Bill.

No doubt it will be pointed out in the course of the debate that the Wales Bill has in it the same number of provisions as the Scotland Bill. I think there is one more clause, indeed, in the Wales Bill than in the Scotland Bill. It will also, no doubt, be pointed out to the Government side that, as is the case, the Government have given as full and important a commitment to the proposals for devolution for Wales as we have for Scotland.

Why, then, do we not put forward the same amount of time for both the Scotland Bill and the Wales Bill? I think it is realistic to say that some of the important principles underlying the legislation will already have been discussed during the Committee stage of the Scotland Bill. Perhaps I should make it clear that the general intention of the Government is that we should first proceed with the Scotland Bill in Committee and then on at a later stage to consider the Committee stage of the Wales Bill, most likely bringing forward the Wales Bill for consideration in Committee before the Scotland Bill has completed its consideration.

But we are not in favour of a rigid arrangement with one day on Scotland and one day on Wales. I think that would lead to a certain amount of confusion in the minds of hon. Members as we were considering these matters. I am glad to note that Opposition Members are nodding in agreement, I hope, with at least that part of what I am saying tonight.

I think it would be much more sensible, since we have split the Bills—and obliged the Opposition, in a sense by doing so—to consider them quite separately, because there are different proposals contained in each Bill.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: Will the Minister give us any indication of when the Committee stage of the Wales Bill is likely to commence? He and his hon. Friends must have thought about this.

Mr. Smith: We have, and I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that we are continuing to think about it. There are other Bills which the House will no doubt wish to consider and, as I say, we are determined to make sure that the Wales Bill reaches the statute book. We shall have to look at these matters from week to week in the usual way. I am sorry that I cannot help the hon. and learned Gentleman by giving a firm commitment as to the day.

Mr. Angus Maude: Is the Minister suggesting that the Committee stage of the Wales Bill should not be started until the Scotland Bill has completed all its stages in this House, or that it may be started as soon as the Scotland Bill is out of Committee?

Mr. Smith: I am not in a position to say precisely what will happen. It will depend to a large extent on the decicisions the House takes on this and other Bills. But the present view of the Government is that it will be possible to move to consideration of the Wales Bill in Committee before we have completed the Scotland Bill in Committee. We have to take account of the time that it will take to get it through with an eye to getting the Bill on the statute book in this Session, but we shall begin with the Scotland Bill.
I think it is reasonable to say that some of the matters at which we shall be looking in Committee on the Wales Bill, if the motion is passed, are similar to some of the provisions in the Scotland Bill—electoral matters, matters of disqualification, and so on. These are roughly the same in the Scotland Bill and in the Wales Bill, and the House, having given careful consideration to them in the Scotland Bill, may feel that it can deal with them in perhaps a shorter time when we come to consider the Wales Bill.
I would argue, therefore, that when the Wales Bill goes into Committee it would be reasonable to expect that it may take a little less time to deal with than the Scotland Bill took in Committee, having regard to the way in which the House of Commons tends to approach these matters. We tend usually to spend much more time on the beginning of a Bill than on the end of it, and whether Bills are timetable d or not, there is sometimes a rather undignified scramble at the end to get a Bill completed. Many of the later clauses and the schedules sometimes go through much more quickly than the earlier parts of a Bill. So I argue that the provision of 11 days is reasonable having regard to the content of the Wales Bill and bearing in mind not only the need for adequate discussion but the obligation of the House to come to firm decisions in these matters.
I shall not take up much more time. I do not think it necessary to go over the arguments again on the justification or otherwise of a timetable motion. We all know perfectly well that every Government who aim to govern purposefully have to bring in such motions to secure essential Bills. We also know, since we respect the conventions, that constitutional Bills must be taken on the Floor of the House. It is extremely difficult to get them through having regard to that provision without a timetable motion.
There is no need for me to go into an examination of whether there was filibustering. The fact of the matter is that the House sitting as a Committee of the whole House does take sometimes a very long time to consider in detail the provisions of a Bill such as constitutional Bills. The House will, no doubt, when giving consideration to its view of this aspect bear in mind the decision just taken on the Scotland Bill. In these circumstances I repeat that I do not think it necessary for to rehearse all the arguments we have just had for three hours, except to say that I believe that Parliament must in the case of this Bill also move towards a decision.
Hon. Members in all parties, including many on this side of the House, have raised the question of the referendum as a very important part of the provisions for Wales. There seems to be a disposition among some of them to say that the

people of Wales do not want these provisions. My judgment, for what it is worth, is that the people of Wales will approve them in the referendum, but the matter is up to them. I am glad that some hon. Members are now quite happy to see the referendum left to the decision of the people of Wales.
It is dangerous to anticipate the attitude of the public about anything, but we are prepared for the provisions to go forward to the people of Scotland and Wales for their decision. Those who have argued in the past that we should not be bringing forward proposals at all because they were not asked for, were not required, or were not demanded by Wales must surely be confident of a referendum if their judgment is correct. But I do not believe it to be correct. However, the proper way for the matter to be settled is by referendum, which will answer the question whether these proposals are wanted by the people of Scotland and Wales.

Mr. Donald Anderson: My hon. Friend has put forward his judgment as to the outcome of the referendum in Wales. It might help to show the quality of that judgment if he were to indicate what he bases it on.

Mr. Smith: I base my judgment on studies, no doubt imperfect, that I have made of the situation. I do not represent a Welsh constituency, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales does, and he has long advocated these proposals and he has as much knowledge and experience as my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) has of the attitude of the people of Wales. We will find out who is right in the referendum result.
One of the most important things that the House will have to consider carefully is the constitutional mechanisms in the Bill. I accept that in our Second Reading debates this week we have tended to concentrate on general principles of whether people want devolution, whether devolution will stabilise unity, and other constitutional issues. I hope that in Committee we can get down to a workmanlike approach to dealing closely and carefully with the details of the Bill.
With the unfortunate exception of the European Communities Bill, which we were not allowed to amend in any way,


the House is usually extremely thorough in its examination of such legislation. The time allowed in this case is reasonable and I believe that we can have a constructive Committee stage.

7.16 p.m.

Mr. Angus Maude: When I listened to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) on the timetable motion for the Scotland Bill, I felt rather like Mr. Cruger who, when called to the hustings to follow one of Edmund Burke's tirades, replied simply but earnestly "I say ditto to Mr. Burke". I should perhaps say "I say ditto to Mr. Pym", but there is a word or two more to be said. The Wales Bill is not the Scotland Bill. It is not a worse Bill, because that would be impossible, but it is certainly a Bill which has been less demanded, is more irrelevant and is less necessary, if possible, than the Scotland Bill.
The Minister of State said that he and his colleagues were confident that the Bill was demanded and wanted and would be welcomed by the people of Wales. That is contrary to all our information and all the experience of our Welsh Members and, evidently, of many Welsh Labour Members, in going round their constituencies.
The interesting question about this Bill —and it is even more relevant to the Wales Bill than to the Scotland Bill—is exactly what is the reason why the Leader of the House has felt it necessary to take what is the not unprecedented but the very rare step of guillotining a Bill before it has even got into Standing Committee. He said that he made no accusations of filibustering or of waste of time, but it must be perfectly clear to the House that it is not the Conservative Opposition of whom he is afraid and for fear of whose interventions he needs to curtail the amount of time given for debate. It is his own Friends behind him whom he is seeking to curtail. It is from his hon. Friends that he is expecting the trouble and who he would expect to drag out the proceedings on the Bill so that it came to the same ignominious end as last time.
It is the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) of whom the right hon. Gentleman is afraid. The hon. Member

for Pontypool said that the Wales Bill was the final ignominy and called it a Bill
conceived out of opportunism and reared in expediency.
That is a fair enough description. So it is the hon. Members for Pontypool, for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) and for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), and perhaps even for Caerphilly (Mr. Evans) whom this timetable is designed to muzzle, not the Conservative Opposition.
The Leader of the House's hon. Friends criticised this Bill both when it was part of the Scotland and Wales Bill in the last Session and in our Second Reading debate yesterday. They have criticised it bitterly as being not only unnecessary but one which is liable to lead to problems not just for the United Kingdom but for Wales itself. Clearly, the attempt to curtail debate is an attempt to curtail their criticism. But this time the Leader of the House has managed to drag them into the Lobby on the Scotland Bill in respect of the guillotine motion, with everyone falling rapidly into line last night, with certain honourable exceptions, on the Second Reading of the Wales Bill.
But to those hon. Members who have made the strange defence of their actions that they do not like the Bill but that they will vote for the Second Reading and for a guillotine motion and then campaign against it when it goes to a referendum of the people of Wales, I would point out that they are deploying a very strange argument. Presumably they will go to their constitutents in the referendum campaign and say "The Wales Bill is a bad Bill. I do not like it. I think that it is unsatisfactory in many respects and that it ought to have been changed if not withdrawn altogether." When their constituents say, "Why did not you fight it line by line and clause by clause and get it amended?", they will then have to say to them "Because I had already allowed the Government to stop me from doing just that". That is what they will be doing if they vote for this timetable motion.
This is not only not a very heroic posture. It is not even a very logical one. There can be no possible reason for any hon. Member, whether he be Welsh or English—and there are many


English Members among the Government's supporters who have doubts about this devolution measure—to vote tonight to curtail the time in which they will be allowed to criticise and to try to amend the Bill. It is capable of being improved, though in our view it is not capable of being made into a good Bill, for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) deployed so powerfully last night.
We are not at the moment questioning the allocation of time on this Bill, though I believe that, on the record and experience of the Scotland and Wales Bill, 11 days may prove too short a time for all the arguments to be deployed fully and for all the amendments to be dealt with properly. But we shall see how the Business Committee works.
I find one argument deployed from the Treasury Bench rather peculiar. The Lord President advanced it and the Minister of State echoed it. It was that the arguments had been deployed so fully and had gone on for so long during our debates on the Scotland and Wales Bill last Session that there was no need to repeat them now. However, the Ministers introducing these Bills have both argued that the Bills are significantly different from the Bill which was introduced last Session and that they have improved it. Certainly they have said that they have made significant changes. One significant change is that the two measures of devolution have been separated into two Bills.
Nor can I accept the argument of the Minister of State that, because the Wales Bill contains certain proposals and provisions which are similar to those in the Scotland Bill, Welsh hon. Members may feel it reasonable to devote less time to considering them on the Wales Bill because the Scots have considered them already on the Scotland Bill. That seems to be a most extradordinary argument which I do not think that any Welsh hon. Member can possibly accept.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): The hon. Gentleman is leaving out of account the fact that both these matters will be considered by the whole House in Committee.

Mr. Maude: I am not in the least leaving that out of account. I am saying

that because there is a similarity between one provision in the Scotland Bill and a provision in the Wales Bill, that does not mean that what goes for Scotland has to be passed on the nod for Wales because the Scots have considered it already. If the Lord President is trying to say that on the timetable that he has provided there will be time for Welsh hon. Members to debate the Scotland Bill, he has underestimated the loquacity of Scottish hon. Members. The argument cannot possibly make any sense unless the right hon. Gentleman is saying that Welsh hon. Members do not need the time to debate on the Welsh Bill because they have debated on the Scotland Bill.

Mr. Foot: Without appearing to interfere with the calling of speakers by the Chairman, I cannot agree—and no one with any experience of this House will agree—with the proposition that on the Scotland Bill only Scottish Members should be called and that on the Wales Bill only Welsh Members should be called. The hon. Gentleman said that because of the loquacity of the Scots that was likely to happen. I repudiate any such attack upon the Scots.

Mr. Maude: The Lord President knows that that was not what I said. He knows that the argument advanced by the Minister of State was that, because there were certain similarities between the two Bills once the course had been cantered over by the Scots, the Welsh ought to be content to take it in a shorter time and need not go over the same ground again. That cannot be sustained for a moment.
Nor can I accept the argument produced previously by the Lord President and the Minister of State that, because all this ground was gone over during the Scotland and Wales Bill debates last Session it need not be gone over again. These are different Bills. It does not in the least follow that amendments which were thought desirable to the Scotland and Wales Bill will be appropriate to these Bills. It may be that hon. Members on both sides will wish to react to these new measures with completely different types of amendment.
In our view, there can be no excuse on a major constitutional measure such as this, for introducing a timetable motion before the Government have even had time to test the temperature of debate


and the mood of right hon. and hon. Members by letting the Bill get into Committee. This is the real mischief of these timetable motions. After all, the Government believe—and the results in the Divisions last night and the night before suggest—that they have managed to convert a great many of their supporters to the merits of the new Scotland Bill and the new Wales Bill.

Mr. Francis Pym: They have only managed to persuade them to vote for it.

Mr. Maude: That is almost certainly true, I agree. Nevertheless, the Government are trying to persuade us that many of their supporters have seen the light and that the great improvements in this Bill have made it unnecessary for the legislation to be considered as closely and at such length as the previous Bill was.
The Opposition do not accept that. I ask Government supporters with Welsh constituencies—and even those English Members who are deeply concerned, as we are, about the possible effects of the Bill on England and on the United Kingdom as a whole—to reflect that if they let it go through half-debated, ill-digested, ill-amended and in a state which may prove to be unworkable, as Bills which are cobbled together hastily and half-debated often prove to be, they will be doing the United Kingdom and their constituents no service. What is more, they will find themselves in an impossible position when, having voluntarily curtailed their own rights to debate and amend the Bill, they go to campaign in a referendum on the grounds that the Bill is a bad Bill and that the people should throw it out.
This is an impossible position for them to take up, and I urge them, as I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends, to vote solidly against this timetable motion.

7.28 p.m.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I intervene very briefly to deal specifically with the questions which were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). He and others have said from time to time—and the claim has been reinforced by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) and other Opposition Members—that

public opinion in Wales is against the Bill.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Hear, hear.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: They have said this time and time again, and the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) echoed it. Obviously he knows very little about it. He has to take the word of his hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke. I want to put forward the contrary case. But before I do so—

Mr. Ian Grist: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: I cannot give way before I have finished a sentence.
Before I do so I wish to make clear that I do not pretend to predict the result of a referendum at this time. I would not be so bold as to prophesy the outcome. Very tentatively I would venture that if it were held tomorrow it would probably be a very tight finish. Things have been said on television and reported in the Press that have frightened people in Wales, and inaccuracies have been perpetrated. Some misleading statements have been made which have confused people about the kind of a Welsh Assembly which is proposed in the Bill. I hope that in the run-up to the referendum both sides of the case will be fairly put, and all the arguments deployed from one end of Wales to the other so that people are able to make a reasoned judgment.
But what we do know is that the Labour Party in Wales favours the Bill. There is no argument about that. Like others here, I have attended several party conferences on this issue over a number of years and resolutions have been passed in favour of devolution to an elected Assembly. Also, the Liberal Party is in favour of devolution to an elected Assembly in Wales, and, as we all know, Plaid Cymru is in favour of "separation".

Mr. Maude: When the right hon. Member says that the Labour Party in Wales is solidly in favour of the measure, is he saying that those hon. Members who have spoken passionately against it are out of line with the Labour Party in Wales and also with the views of their own constituents?,

Mr. Hughes: Yes, I am saying that. The hon. Member has summarised my point exactly. The fact is that these proposals for devolution to an elected Assembly were in the Labour Party's Manifesto in the two elections of 1974.

Mr. Anderson: My right hon. Friend knows how difficult it is to find unanimity in our party on anything. If he goes to my local party he will find unanimity on this at least.

Mr. Hughes: Yes, I appreciate that my hon. Friend may be in difficulty with his party on this. But I think that it is right to rise above these parochial considerations and take a broad view, and no doubt in due course he will come round to this point of view.
The Wales Trade Union Council, a substantial and important body of opinion in Wales, is in favour of devolution. So is the Farmers' Union of Wales, which represents a large number of farmers in the Principality. Most of the Welsh Churches are also in favour—

Mr. Leon Brittan: What has this got to do with the guillotine?

Mr. Hughes: The hon Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) knows nothing of the Welsh Churches. He made a long speech last night and now he should allow me to make my own speech in my own way.

Mr. Brittan: I was not seeking to bandy words about any of the institutions to which the right hon. Member has referred. I am simply asking him to contain himself for a moment, and tell us whether any of their views have anything to do with the guillotine?

Mr. Hughes: They have as much to do with the guillotine as the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon, who made similar points when he opened on that side. I will not pursue this at any great length. The fact is that it is impossible to prophesy the result of the referendum. Those who believe that a majority in a referendum will support this measure have as much evidence behind them as those who say otherwise.
I think that the timetable motion is sensible and that it will give a generous amount of time for debate in Committee.

It gives much greater certainty of full debate on all parts of the Bill than would be the case without the timetable.
I have seen Governments of both major parties reacting in circumstances where there is no timetable on a major Bill. Government Whips tend to encourage their Members not to speak on the Committee stage. The Government Whips come around and tell Members that the Opposition are taking up all the time, and unless one has something very important to say they ask one to be good enough not to speak or otherwise the Government will not get their business through. The fact is that without a timetable the only hon. Members on this side of the House who would speak on this case would be my hon. Friends the Members for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) and Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock). These are facts of life.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I wonder whether the right hon. Member could help the House. He has just told us that there is ample time to debate the Bill. I have been trying to work out a reasonable allocation of time for the different parts of the Bill, and I find it increasingly difficult to see how one can get through 72 clauses and many schedules and give adequate time for debating vital points. It is quite clear that the right hon. Member has done this exercise and worked out how much time can be given to each clause. I hope that he will give us guidance about the way in which such an exercise may be carried out.

Mr. Hughes: That is probably the most reasonable point the hon. Member has made in his speeches on this subject. I am not a party manager on this matter. The fact is—and this is within the experience of everyone in this House—that where Bills have gone through without a timetable the major part of the time has been given to three-quarters of the Bill. In many cases the last quarter has gone through without adequate discussion. I may not go all the way with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), who suggests that we have a timetable on every occasion. I would prefer to see each one argued on its merits.
After all the discussions we have had on devolution, and taking account of the fact that the House has just agreed to


the timetable motion for the Scotland Bill, it is not unreasonable to argue that the Wales Bill should be given similar treatment. I ask the House to support the motion because it is the reasonable course.

7.39 p.m.

Mr. John Stokes: I take part in this debate not only as an English Member but as one who has a great many Welsh people living in my constituency, as they do throughout the West Midlands. This Bill touches not just on Wales but on the whole of the United Kingdom and, above all, on the 45 million people in England, very few of whose representatives—and this is not a criticism of the Chair—have spoken either today or in the previous two debates.
I believe that in all my time in the House today has been of utmost significance. As so often happens in this place, although the motion we are debating may be procedural, the subjects raised have been fundamental and touch vital issues.
I sat through many of the debates on the Scotland and Wales Bill, and it was only when we came to consider the clauses and their full implications—implications not only for Wales, but for England, Northern Ireland and the whole of the United Kingdom—that we realised how fundamental the measure was. We all know that when the Government attempted to impose a guillotine they lost.
Since I have been in the House I have learnt greatly to respect this place and most of its Members, quite apart from any party consideration. I have also learned to trust the instinct of this House. I believe that today, in spite of the vote earlier, the instinct of the House is against both Bills. I hope that tonight we shall have the courage of our convictions at least to vote down this timetable motion.
The House has heard enough already even in two short one-day debates—debates in which very few English Members have spoken, although they represent about four-fifths of the United Kingdom —to realise that the Bills contain the gravest defects. Nobody has remotely

suggested how those defects may be cured. If these measures are to be passed, we are saddling our ancient constitution, which has developed almost miraculously over the centuries, with something that will be unworkable and that will cause endless confusion, sorrow and ultimately, I fear, disaster.
I do not believe that the vast majority of the people in English constituencies realise the implications of these Bills. We have not had enough time—nor shall we have enough time—to bring out the most important factor that, under these arrangements, the English will have no Parliament of their own, and no say whatever on matters devolved to the new Assemblies in Wales and Scotland. But Wales and Scotland will continue to be fully represented—or even over-represented—here in Westminster as they have been up to the present.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on all matters devolved to the Welsh Assembly the power to legislate will remain in this Chamber? That surely justifies the same number of Members from Wales remaining here to look after that aspect.

Mr. Stokes: I do not think it will work out in that way. We shall find that the Welsh and Scottish Members here will be in a ridiculous and anomalous position and will be a threat and a menace to English Members. They will comprise a large number of this House. Labour Members may laugh, because they may think that it suits their party best. The situation might arise where there is a majority of English Members who are in favour of a Conservative Government but they will be voted down by Welsh and Scottish Members who, although having no say on Wales and Scotland, will have the ultimate say on the government of England. That is a monstrous proposition.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Is the hon. Gentleman aware how often Welsh Members have been voted down by English Members in this House?

Mr. Stokes: But Wales is nowhere near the size of England. Wales cannot say that it has had bad treatment. Many people in England, particularly those in the West Midlands, have seen work


taken away from their areas and industrial development certificates denied them so that jobs may go instead to people in Wales and Scotland. It is wrong to say that Wales and Scotland have been treated unfairly compared with the treatment accorded to England. The favouritism has been in the direction of Wales, for example, because that is where the bark of Labour Members is most heard, and that is what this Bill is all about. I do not wish to be party political tonight and I would not have ventured on that path if I had not been interrupted.
The House knows that my first care is for the whole nation—Conservative, Labour and Liberal. It is because I fear that the nation is in danger from these measures that I am speaking in this debate, having sat through many hours of discussion. We have the situation that the Welsh and Scottish Members who remain here will be able to make or unmake Governments for the United Kingdom, of which England is by far the greatest part. England will be downgraded as a result of these arrangements and placed in a decidedly inferior position compared with the rest of the United Kingdom, with the possible exception of Northern Ireland.
We are told that we are to have a strict timetable to consider these most important matters, and there is the new, or fairly novel, suggestion that our decision in this House will be dependent on a referendum. We do not know how that referendum will be conducted. We have seen a suggestion as to how the questions will be phrased. Everybody knows that in a referendum the essence of the matter lies in how to phrase the questions.
The implication here is that if one wishes to vote for the Scotland Bill or the Wales Bill, it will automatically mean that Scotland or Wales will remain within the United Kingdom. That begs the whole question. We have not yet heard the views of the nationalist Members from Wales, but we heard earlier from Members of the SNP. They made it abundantly clear that they look upon this measure as the first step towards complete separation and independence.
We all know that once those Assemblies are created they will demand more

power and money and will not be satisfied until they have achieved separation. That will grieve and distress most people in England, but it will also affect the people in Scotland and Wales, whose hopes have been unduly raised by the advent of these Bills. These Bills will not help unemployment and nor will they reduce inflation or increase production, which is now so low. People will not go to work and say "We shall all be able to work harder today because we now have devolution legislation". What nonsense to expect people to take such a view, because people do not think in that way! I have not had one letter from a constituent in favour of these Bills, but I have received a great many letters against them.
My experience as an English Member in an industrial city in the West Midlands must mirror the experience of many Members throughout the United Kngdom. We all know that there is not a demand for this measure in Wales, and there is probably not even the bare majority for the similar measure in Scotland. We all know the reasons for these Bills, but I believe that the possible political gain which the Labour Party hopes to obtain from tampering with the constitution has virtually vanished now that the nationalist tide appears to be on the ebb.
I face the future with the utmost foreboding. I am sorry that there are now so few Members in the Chamber, because I believe that tonight is an occasion on which, if we love our country, we must vote according to our individual consciences. I hope that at least every hon. Member present now will do that.
The fact that the House unfortunately made a wrong decision on the earlier vote tonight is no reason why it should make a wrong decision on the next one. After all, this is primarily a House of Commons matter, a matter of how we conduct our own affairs and whether we wish to give ourselves "fair do" on these gravest of grave matters—and that should transcend purely political considerations.
Ever since I have been in the House I have believed as a cardinal principle that the safety of the State and cohesion of society were the twin pillars upon which we ought to base our actions. Both these principles are now threatened. I fear endless conflict and confusion. False


hopes will be raised that cannot possibly be satisfied. We know that people are really concerned about such things as inflation, unemployment, housing and education and not devolution.
Ever since the end of the war there has been an almost catastrophic fall in the national spirit, certainly compared with France, for example, which we have seen rise from the ashes. We all know, alas, that we in the United Kingdom are no longer the sort of nation that we were at the end of the war. We know, of course, that the spirit is there and we saw how the Jubilee pulled it out, but it lies dormant and must be reawakened. Can any hon. Member honestly say to himself that as a result of these Bills more than a handful of people in the United Kingdom will feel more cheered or encouraged? The Bills will only weaken and harm our constitution.
We should be tremendously concerned because we propose, on the one hand—if we agree to this measure tonight and if the Bills are passed—to hand over certain of our powers to Assemblies in Scotland and Wales. At the same time, if we agree to the proposals for direct elections to the European Assembly—and I remain a convinced European but not a convinced Assemblyman—that will also have an effect, in time and inevitably, of taking power away from this ancient House.
Between the two, the local Assemblies here and the Assembly on the Continent, our power and prestige will lessen. It seems extremely sad that for the sake of a short-term political advantage the Government should think fit to bring such irrelevant measures before us that will have grave consequences for our nation. If we vote in favour of this motion tonight, we shall all live to regret it. I appeal to the consciences of hon. Members to safeguard our future and not to imperil it.

7.54 p.m.

Dr. Colin Phipps: I cannot pretend that I rise to address the House now with the same amount of adrenalin in my blood that I might have had an hour and a half ago. That is difficult when one is in the position of backing a horse that one has already seen come fourth—or perhaps I should

say second since there were only two horses in this particular race.
I had hoped, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to catch your eye during the previous debate and it was something of a blow to me to hear my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler), in a spritely but somewhat disjointed speech, complain that I had not spoken at length during the Scotland and Wales No. 1 Bill, as it is now being called. It was also particularly disappointing, because I shared the experience of the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) as an English Member who sat in the Chamber for hours, jumping up and down, unable to catch the eye of the Chair, while the Scottish and Welsh hordes swept over us.
I now find it only too easy to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because the result of this debate is a foregone conclusion. It is perhaps worth examining why that will be so and why the result of the last debate turned out in the way that it did.
I am not in any sense opposed to the principle of the guillotine; nor would the precedent set by having an immediate guillotine after Second Reading be necessarily bad. The House determines its precedents. If it is to be a precedent that the House is prepared to accept, so be it.
I also accept that voting against the guillotine is a perfectly legitimate way to oppose the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) and my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) suggested that opponents of the Bill were perhaps being less than honest in not saying that in voting against the guillotine they intended to defeat the Bill. I have never made a secret of that and anyone who reads the debate that took place on the previous occasion will find that I and other hon. Members made that point strongly. We knew that by voting against the guillotine we would defeat the Bill, and that was our objective. That again seems to be a perfectly legitimate thing for the House to do. If a Government seek approval from the House for a measure and obtain that approval, they will naturally get the guillotine. If not, the Government have no business in getting the guillotine.
Tonight we have just seen a guillotine motion passed by 26 votes, and I want to examine why that happened and why the second motion will also be carried. I am absolutely convinced that it will not be because opponents of the Bills on all sides of the House have suddenly been persuaded of their merits for either Scotland or Wales. The Whips have been extremely active, as everybody knows, in recent weeks attempting to persuade hon. Members on this side who are opposed to devolution to support the guillotine. Have the Whips been extolling the virtues of the Bill in attempting to persuade hon. Members to go into the Lobbies? Far from it, and I can tell the House the sort of arguments that the Whips have been using.
I was most privileged to have no fewer than two interviews with the Chief Whip on this very matter—on the second occasion even over a glass of whisky. Far from discussing with me the merits of the proposals before the House, the Chief Whip put forward arguments that were entirely concerned with the Government's credibility.
I am glad to see the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) coming into the Chamber, because he said earlier tonight that the passage of a guillotine motion should reflect the will of the majority. That is a sentiment that most of us would find acceptable, but the vote that has just taken place reflected not the will of the majority but the will of the Executive.
Of all the things that I have found appalling during the four years I have been in the House the worst is the power that the Executive holds over its own Back Benchers when those Back Benchers do not want certain measures to be put before them at all. There is no question of there being a majority in the House today for either of these Bills or the proposals before us. It is important to say to the Government that the guillotine will not mean that the opponents of the Bill on this or the other side will stop fighting.
I know that more than 13 of my hon. Friends who voted with the Government are as opposed as ever to this measure and that is quite enough to give the majority of 26 that we have just seen. In fact, I believe the number to be larger

than 13, and I think that what they did was wrong.

Mr. Tom Ellis: My hon. Friend talks about the will of the majority, but can he not see that one of the purposes of the Bill is that in a House that, in a national sense, is not homogeneous the rights of national minorities should count for something?

Dr. Phipps: I agree that the rights ok national and regional minorities should be accepted in the House, but one point that has been reiterated time and again in our discussion of this matter is that only specific regions of the United Kingdom are to be given these powers.
I believe that my hon. Friends who voted with the Government earlier were mistaken. I do not believe that the Government's credibility was at stake or that they would have fallen. They would have continued doing what we are delighted to see them doing, namely, improving the economy. That improvement will lead to electoral victory later next year quite independent of whether these Bills go through.
Despite their absolute convictions in opposition to the Bills, some of my hon. Friends voted with the Government. I say to them that the fight is not over. We shall be looking for ways of improving the Bill, and I appeal to them to support those of us who have remained firm in everything we do in Committee.
I do not believe in referendums. I did not support the referendum on the Common Market, although I am pro the Market and I was confident that the referendum would support my view. It is the duty of this House to decide what we do about devolution. It is our duty to make sure in the days allotted to us that the final shape of the Bills can be supported by us all. It will be difficult. My hon. Friends who, through their commitment and loyalty to the Government, felt unable to go into the Lobby against the Bill should appreciate that their commitment and their loyalty have been paid and it is essential that all opponents of the Bills must consider them closely and, while not putting down hundreds of amendments, must press for changes that will make the Bills measures that we can live with.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: In approaching the principle of the timetable motion, I have great sympathy with the attitude of the former Government Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), who spoke of the need for a structured debate on major measures before the House. There are overwhelming reasons in favour of such a move, and I say that against a background of having served on Standing Committees such as that which spent 40 sittings considering the Industry Bill, when the same arguments were reiterated time and again. The time of the House and of hon. Members could be better utilised and a better end product could be delivered if there were a structured approach to our debate, allowing adequate time for discussion of major subjects.
It was clear in our discussions on the Scotland and Wales Bill between the beginning of January and the end of February that progress was very slow. If the guillotine had been carried, there would not have been the same amount of time given to later stages as was devoted to the earlier stages, when many points were being reiterated time after time. This is a matter that could be considered by any Committee that looks into the procedures of the House. It could consider developments in this direction in order to safeguard the quality of the Bills that we pass.
As a comparatively young hon. Member who has been here for only three years I hesitate to say this, but it seems that Governments have a great belief in guillotines while Oppositions have a great disbelief, and a party's attitude reverses as the colour of the Government changes. It is bad for the credibility of Parliament if people see somersaults of these sorts too frequently. A movement towards structured debates would be useful in avoiding that.
Although the Bill is constitutional in many aspects, I should have thought that certain clauses could be considered in Standing Committee. Major matters would be taken in the Chamber, but the detailed work could be done upstairs. As it is, the Government are not going for that and have provided for 11 days' discussion on the Floor of the House.

Sir Raymond Gower: There is great objection to considering such a big

constitutional change in Standing Committee. Many hon. Members would not be able to be present and that would be objectionable. Will the hon. Gentleman not reconsider what he has said?

Mr. Wigley: No. Perhaps the hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) misheard me. Some aspects of the Bill are of major constitutional significance, but there are others that are detailed, nitty-gritty questions of operational work. They could be taken upstairs.
The Wales Bill does not include provision for setting up a separate legislature and it is therefore more analagous to local government structures and, just as certain aspects of local government are considered upstairs, so parts of this Bill could be considered by a small Committee.
Even though the Scotland and Wales Bill failed, many issues were brought to the attention of the House and the Government in those debates. Much of the work, the discussion and the constructive criticism of that Bill will have helped in producing the current Bills.
The informal discussions that took place in the summer after the failure of the Scotland and Wales Bill have helped to overcome certain problems. For example, my hon. Friends and I and hon. Members from all parties will be proposing an amendment concerning proportional representation. It will be a better amendment than the one that we tabled last time, because of the experience that we have gained. The time spent on the Scotland and Wales Bill has not been totally wasted. It has brought certain aspects to light and has led to some changes, including changes in attitude.
We regard the new Bill as inadequate. We have made no secret of the fact that we should like to go further, but even in its present form the Bill is worth having. It introduces a level of democracy that does not exist at present and provides for supervision of nominated bodies in Wales and for democratic control of the existing government in Wales.
Before the Scotland and Wales Bill was considered in the House, the Tories were the most vociferous in calling for a referendum. If the timetable motion fails, the possibility of a referendum through the Wales Bill will be lost—yet the Tories will be voting against the guillotine. Why are they so afraid of the referendum? If


they believe that there is no majority in Wales in favour of the Bill, they should be happy that the referendum will give the Welsh people the opportunity to decide for themselves. In addition, there will be the opportunity for a structured debate before the referendum to give Conservative Members the chance to make the Bill into the best possible measure to present to the people of Wales for their decision in a referendum.

Mr. Maude: The argument that the hon. Gentleman is deploying makes no sense. Certainly we thought that it was better to have a referendum if we had to have devolution, but we do not believe that devolution to Wales in the form presented in the Bill is necessary or desirable. What we want is not a referendum but no Bill.

Mr. Wigley: The argument put forward by Conservative Members last year was that the people of Wales did not want the Bill. They saw the referendum as the appropriate mechanism to determine that issue. The referendum is provided by this Bill, and there will be an opportunity for the people of Wales to decide on the basis of a detailed and specific Bill rather than on an open-ended package.

Mr. Norman T'ebbit: We can take it as fairly common ground that a referendum on the abolition of the monarchy in England would probably decide the issue that the people of England still want the monarchy. However, that does not make a case for the House passing an Act to abolish the monarchy and then subjecting it to a referendum.

Mr. Wigley: The hon. Gentleman does not appreciate that four of the five parties fighting elections in Wales have stood for some form of elected Welsh Assembly —some stronger than others—over a number of years. It has been an issue of long debate. I am not aware that the issue of doing away with the monarchy in England has been an issue of debate. For many years the Welsh people have been expecting to see some progress towards devolution. The Welsh TUC, the Labour Party in Wales, the Liberal Party, the Communist Party and my own party have been pressing for that for some years. The Labour Party in Wales has been pressing for an elected Assem-

bly in Wales for longer than the Labour Party in Scotland has been pressing for a Scottish Assembly.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The argument that the hon. Gentleman has been advancing would have been relevant to last night's debate. I sought to deal with it at a time when I think that the hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber. We are now concerned with the way in which the Bill is handled and with the adequacy of the arrangements allowed by the Government. Will the hon. Gentleman address himself to the time that is being made available? Does he think that it will be possible to analyse and debate the important clauses of the huge range of legislation that is referred to in the Bill in a satisfactory manner in the time that the Government seek to give us?

Mr. Wigley: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that he is voting against the timetable motion so as to kill the Bill. He will not then be rushing forward with a proposal to have a referendum to resurrect some other model of devolution in Wales. As his hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) has said, he does not believe in any sort of devolution in Wales. That was made clear. It was made clear earlier tonight and in the previous debate, when it was said that there was no reason for Wales to have a Bill at all.
Last year during the passage of the Scotland and Wales Bill the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues were arguing the case for two Bills. Having been given two Bills we hear that it is not that that they want but one Bill. In other words, they call for a referendum and when they get it they try to stop it. They call for two Bills and when they get them they try to do away with one of them. They try to stop progress in any direction. That should be seen by everyone in Wales who has an interest in the subject. I have not yet determined the principles of the Opposition when it comes to devolution. They seem to have nothing other than to maintain the status quo, nothing more and nothing less.
There are some federalists among the ranks of the Conservative Party in the House. I direct my next comment to the hon. Member for Barry and the hon. and learned Member for Denbigh (Mr.


Morgan). Following the vote at the end of the previous debate, it seems that we are likely to see the establishment of a Scottish Assembly, given the climate of opinion in Scotland. Those who believe in the federal model must realise that there is likely to be a more logical federal model if there is devolution to a Welsh Assembly than if there is devolution to Scotland and a Scottish Assembly and nothing in Wales. I appreciate the sincere view that is held by the hon. Member for Barry, the hon. and learned Member for Denbigh and others on the federal model, but they should now support a Welsh Assembly.
In his intervention the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) referred to the time that the Government have allowed. Less time will be given to the Wales Bill than the Scottish Bill. The Government will give 11 days to Wales and 17 days to Scotland. There are certain aspects that lead one to think that that is not totally unreasonable. The main question is one to which others have referred—namely, the West Lothian dimension, if I may be so rash as to say so.
We are talking about having a non-legislative Assembly in Wales. We have no problem of Welsh Members legislating on English affairs and English Members not legislating on Welsh affairs. In the Bill's present form legislating on Welsh affairs will remain in this Chamber. Certainly there will be executive and administrative decisions being taken in Wales. To that extent there will be a difference in the powers of Members at Westminster with Welsh constituencies and English constituencies, but to some extent that exists already. For example, if I want to ask Questions about housing in my constituency, I cannot direct them once a month to the Minister for Housing and Construction, I have to direct them once every six weeks to the Secretary of State for Wales. That difference in respect of the Executive already exists in the Chamber. There are two classes of Members.
The differential may not be so great as it will be when the Assembly is set up. But it does not have the legislative dimension—the problem to which the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has referred so often—that of

having compatibility between a major legislature and a sub-legislature within a unitary State. To that extent I do not believe that so much time will be necessary on the Wales Bill.
The question of devolution to a Welsh Assembly or an elected Welsh Council, as the case may be, has been discussed in Wales in great depth for 12 years. The debate has gone on for longer in Wales than in Scotland—I refer to the recent past—and certainly the Labour Party in Wales has been debating it for longer than the Tories. The Tories in Wales seem to have started thinking about it only recently. That is their own fault. It is not the fault of the debate that has been taking place in Wales.
As for English Members, they had an opportunity to give evidence to the Kilbrandon Commission on the regional dimension of government in England. There has been the opportunity since the middle and late 1960s for Members from all parts of the United Kingdom to direct their minds to these problems. To say now that it is too early to take a decision would be seen in Wales as nothing more than a cynical exercise.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Not so long ago I was asked a question by Harlech Television that I could not answer. It was to the effect that if the Welsh see the Scots having a great deal more than the Welsh, which is now true, how long would it be before the Welsh wanted the same as the Scots. I shall be interested to hear the hon. Gentlman's reply to that question. I did not presume to answer it.

Mr. Wigley: It is a fair question and it was reasonable that the hon. Gentleman did not answer it when he was asked it by HTV. The answer is "Yes", we shall want more. That is how we stand as a party. That is how the Liberals stand. In the Second Reading debate yesterday the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) saw similar evolution from this Bill. But we are now discussing a Bill to set up an executive and an administrative Assembly only. The arguments pertaining to that are those that are under consideration in this guillotine debate.
The point I am making is that the dimension on which the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has concentrated a great deal of energy is to that


extent less in the Welsh context than in the Scottish context when we consider these two Bills.

Sir Raymond Gower: Does the hon. Gentleman go as far as that? If he had evidence that the proposals contained in the Bill were regarded as obnoxious and extremely divisive to a majority in the most thickly populated parts of the Principality, such as Glamorgan, Gwent, North-East Wales and Flintshire, would he still pursue the policy of dividing Wales in this way?

Mr. Wigley: We believe that the Assembly can help in the government of Wales, but we can go no further and no quicker than the support of the people of Wales will allow. I hope that in having a referendum on the issue of Wales—assuming that we get that far—we shall not leave deep scars in the Welsh community. Of course, there will be fierce arguments. I imagine that the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), myself and other Members will be clashing on a number of occasions. However, I hope that that does not leave scars that will last for years irrespective of whether the Assembly comes or does not come in the wake of the referendum.
What is important is that we have, if possible, a clear-cut decision and a fair debate. However, until we have the referendum I do not think that we should take it for granted that there is deep-held opposition in any part of Wales. The referendum will give us the answer to that question.
Another difference when comparing Wales with Scotland is that historically the Welsh political spectrum has tended to be more condensed than the Scottish. At the turn of the century, in the Liberal heyday, every seat but one was held by the Liberal Party, and that one seat was held by Keir Hardie. In 1966 only three Tories and one Liberal Member were elected. The other 32 were Labour. To that extent there has been more cohesiveness in the Welsh political spectrum. When our minds are put to building the Assembly into a worthwhile political body, we can achieve a consensus on this question.
The last reason why I find it easier to live with fewer days for the Wales Bill is that there are fewer Welsh

Members to take part in the debate, although certain Members can take a considerable time—I am not looking in any particular direction. It would also appear from the attendance at this debate, compared with the earlier debate tonight, that fewer English Members take an interest in the Welsh Bill than in the Scottish Bill.
I also believe that the Bill is better than the previous Bill in one respect: it clearly defines the Bill's attitude towards local government. It shows that the question of local government is to be dealt with by the Assembly when it is set up and is not a matter to be built into the Bill—in other words, that the Bill will not provide for changes in local government. If the position had been otherwise, there would have been a need for more time.
We have heard from the Tories tonight that Wales cannot expect to have more time and attention at Westminster than it has because of the population ratios. To the extent that there is a Welsh dimension, to the extent that we have in Wales circumstances that are different and need different policies, we should have the appropriate time to discuss those policies. If, understandably and fairly, that cannot be provided here, where we are only one-twentieth in population terms, let us have our own forum to discuss matters of particular concern to Wales and make decisions affecting our own lives. There is already a host of bodies in Wales—private-sector bodies, voluntary bodies and so on—organised on an all-Wales level. It is incredible that we should not have one political forum directly elected by the people of Wales to take decisions on matters of all-Wales importance.
I regret that we are unlikely to have the support of the Ulster Unionists in the vote tonight. I understand that they would like to see a model of devolution for Northern Ireland. It might be similar to our model or more similar to the Scottish. It is sad that if that is indeed their wish they should take a dog-in-the-manger attitude. I hope that they secure the Assembly that they want. Whatever their attitude tonight to our Bill, I shall support them when their attempt at securing a devolved Assembly for Northern Ireland comes up.
We are talking about democracy, about allowing people of Wales to decide in a limited area on matters of primary concern to them. Secondly, we are talking about allowing them to decide through a referendum whether they want to have the model that is proposed.
I hope that the vote tonight will not be a backdoor way of killing the Bill. I have every respect for people such as the hon. Member for Pontypool, who expressed his attitude to the Bill on Second Reading. I hope that hon. Members who were not as forthright as he was then will not try to use the backdoor way to kill the Bill and thereby the referendum and a chance for the people of Wales to take a decision on their future.

8.24 p.m.

Sir Raymond Gower: Hon. Members should not conclude that because the last vote was so heavily against any variation of the Government's plan for a guillotined timetable the same result must necessarily follow. That appeared to be the conclusion of the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps). I hope that others will take a different view.
There is another difference between the Wales Bill and the Scotland Bill to which the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) did not refer. There is far more support for a devolved Assembly in Scotland than there is for one in Wales. The hon. Gentleman compared the two solutions proposed by the Government. Just as the Government's plan for Scotland is different from that for Wales, the desire in Scotland for devolution appears to be far stronger. I shall not say how strong it is, because I am not an expert, but there is a great deal of evidence that it is stronger, and this seems to be the basis for hon. Members possibly taking a different course at the end of this debate than that which they took at the end of the first debate.
I do not subscribe to the view that the oppostion to the timetable is solely a means of killing the Bill. A great constitutonal change of this kind merits not merely the fullest examination of each clause but a generous examination of the alternatives which will be put forward in the form of amendments.
If the Lord President divides the number of clauses by the number of days, after deducting time for Report and Third Reading, he will find that we are left with a few clauses each day. That may not seem a great deal, but we can reasonably expect a large number of amendments. I am not talking about an excessive number, but if there are merely the kind of number that is generally tabled on important measures of this kind there will be a great deal to discuss at each sitting. There is not likely to be enough time for the consideration that this kind of change demands.
The hon. Gentleman said that he was in favour of a timetable of this kind because it would ensure fuller discussion and a more sensible examination of the whole Bill. That is not so. The guillotine will drop on a certain day whether or not adequate progress has been made.

Mr. Hooson: In the debates on the Scotland and Wales Bill, points were repeated ad nauseam on each clause. The debate on the clause was used as a means of repeated attacks on the Bill. Unless there is a timetable, that is what will happen again.

Sir R. Gower: I have much respect for the hon. and learned Gentleman's views, but I cannot entirely subscribe to what he has just said. I have re-read the debates, and I can say that the amount of repetition was not so much because hon. Members were seeking to repeat arguments but simply because all hon. Members representing Scottish and Welsh constituencies wanted to have a say, when perhaps they would not have wanted to do so on another Bill.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Whenever we considered any part of the Scotland and Wales Bill, we found that the consideration took us back to the underlying unsolved dilemmas. That was the reason for the repetition, and that was in the nature of the Bill.

Sir R. Gower: What was repeated was what has been described as the West Lothian question. The right hon Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) referred obliquely to that. We returned to it again and again. It reminded us that the Bill was drawn in such a way that it produced an incredible state of affairs that could not be defended.
The hon. Member for Caernarvon suggested that the defeat of the timetable motion would inevitably mean the abandonment of the Bill. Is that so? I cannot recall many Sessions in which, apart from this legislation and the European Assembly Elections Bill, we have had more important legislation. Looking at the debate on the Address, one realises that there is nothing of vital importance in this Session, apart from the usual budgetary debates which are annual events. This, by any definition, is an extremely thin programme, apart from devolution and European legislation.

Mr. Hooson: Is the hon. Gentleman regretting the absence of nationalisation measures in the Queen's Speech?

Sir R. Gower: No. I have made no reference to any particular legislation. There is no legislation of any kind of great importance, apart from that which is before us. I did not define what legislation was missing.
For example, we could have had an excellent Bill to implement the acknowledged need for reforms in company law. We could have valuable legislation in this Session to deal with the introduction of profit-sharing and co-ownership in much of our industry—matters praised by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) and his colleagues. But none of these matters is in the programme.

Mr. Wigley: The hon. Gentleman suggested that he would like to see time allotted to those matters. If we have more time for the Wales Bill by not having the guillotine, surely there will be less opportunity for discussing those matters.

Sir R. Gower: The point is that we have a programme which contains none of those matters. Therefore, there is ample time to extend the time that has been proposed by the Government. There is no argument for suggesting that if the House rejects this inadequate timetable we cannot debate those matters. In the generous time available in this Session we can debate those matters with the aid of devices other than the timetable. For example, use can be made of the closure. If a majority of Members feel that a matter has been adequately debated, the closure can be moved. There

is also the Chairman's selection of amendments. These devices can be used to curtail debate. It is inaccurate to suggest that the defeat of this inadequate guillotine would be fatal to progress on the Bill.
The hon. Member for Caernarvon seemed to suggest that it was wrong for an Opposition to be critical of the proposals of any Administration and to want to discuss them in detail. It is reasonable at any time to be critical of Government proposals, but particularly in this instance.
I object strongly to the suggestion that any considerable part of this legislation should be referred to a Committee upstairs. Legislative proposals of this kind should be taken on the Floor of the House so that Members from all parts of the United Kingdom can participate in the debates.
Unfortunately, there are very few Members in the Chamber at the moment. However, I hope that hon. Members generally will reflect that, although a certain decision has been arrived at on the Scotland Bill, a quite separate decision has to be made on this Bill. I hope that those who have expressed their anxieties and objections to the Bill—the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps) suggested that there had been duress or persuasion by unofficial and official emissaries of the Government—will not repeat the decision that they took on the Scotland Bill but will stick to the decision that they made on the Scotland and Wales Bill a year ago and will vote against these proposals tonight.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Caerwyn E. Roderick: The hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) regretted the absence of so many hon. Members. It may be an illustration of the lack of opposition to the guillotine.
Many hon. Members have been arguing for weeks that the referendum should be brought forward so that it takes place before we consider the Bill in Committee. Many of us have tried to make it clear that this would be a nonsense. We would be presenting to the people of Wales a Bill that had not been changed. What would happen if the result of the referendum were "Yes" and we were asked to proceed? We should not then


be able to amend the Bill because the people would have accepted the original Bill. If we did amend it, should we not have to ask the people whether they wished to accept the new Bill? We can hold a referendum only on a definite question. We cannot put a vague proposition before the people.
I raise that situation to compare it with tonight's situation. One argument is that we should not introduce a guillotine at this early stage and that we should have more time for debate. I contend that we had the opportunity for plenty of debate in the last Session on a similar measure. The present proposals for Wales are almost identical. The days spent in the last Session discussing devolution should be included in the calculation of how much time we have spent discussing the proposals. To pretend that we have debated them for only one day is nonsense. If hon. Members consider that seriously they will realise that we have adequately debated the measure.
It may surprise some hon. Members to know that I did not agree with the Lord President about everything. Certainly, I did not agree with him about timetables. I agreed more with the line that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) took.
I have served on many Committees upstairs and I know the sort of exercises that go on. When in Opposition one speaks at length in an attempt at delay. In Government one dare not look at a Whip if one tries to speak. When in Government one is debarred from taking part in debates at the Committee stage. In that sense we do not have proper debates in Committee. One side is debarred and inhibited and the other is completely liberated. When in Opposition one can do as one pleases. A case can be made out for generously time-tabling every important measure.

Mr. Ioan Evans: The Lord President said there had not been any filibustering during the Second Reading of the earlier Bill. Is not there a danger, if discussion time on a clause is limited, that some hon. Members will speak at length to avoid others making valid arguments? That is the danger of the timetable.

Mr. Roderick: I contend that there was filibustering on the previous measure. I had to sit here night after night watching the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) going round the Chamber as an unofficial Whip with a rota of speakers in order to continue the debate. It would be appropriate if he were prepared at some stage to deny that he had a list in his hand and that he was going round the House canvassing people to come in and speak so that the debate could be continued.

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Member has got it wrong. My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) was actually trying to help the Government. He was going round urging people not to come in here, so that the Government could get their Bill more quickly. If the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) did not speak to my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate, he will not know whether my version or his is the correct one.

Mr. Roderick: That speaks volumes for the credibility of the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). We now know how much to trust him in anything he says in the Chamber. We know what was taking place that night—and on every night. We saw it in the corridors. The hon. Member for Reigate was speaking to people, and he was not the only one. It was useful for the Opposition to use an unofficial Whip to do that. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is a modest man and he would not speak in these matters as I do. He is such a tolerant man that he would not be prepared to be as bold as I am in declaring that this activity went on. Is any Conservative Member here prepared to deny that this activity took place?

Sir Raymond Gower: The hon. Member is sidestepping the very valid point made by his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans). The meat of the issue is that when there is an element of filibustering without a guillotine it may be unpleasant or objectionable. But if there is filibustering or lengthy speaking in order to prevent discussion of certain amendments when the guillotine is on, that is considerably worse. How can the hon. Member deal with that?

Mr. Roderick: I invite the hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gowers) to witness what will happen after the guillotine has been imposed. Certain right hon. and hon. Members will lose interest in the debate and we shall have a much smaller group of participants, consisting of those who are deeply interested in the matters in hand. We shall have a concentrated debate in that we shall not waste time in the way that we wasted it previously. We shall ensure that we get a two-sided debate instead of the one-sided debate that we witnessed on the earlier Bill.
Last night we had a Second Reading debate on the Bill. I had not intended to speak, but when, after sitting through the entire debate, I witnessed the latecomers entering the Chamber intent on continuing the discussion, I felt it just as well to join in. Eventually we had to try to keep the debate going. Such was the extent of enthusiasm and interest that there were insufficient speakers for the time allotted. Anyone who wanted to speak was able to do so, and I noticed no one who had been getting up to speak being prevented from making his contribution.
There was little enthusiasm last night for a long debate. Once the guillotine is in operation, there will be little enthusiasm for long debates in the future. I hope that we shall have an adequate supply of speakers to keep the discussion going for the time that has been allocated. I am sure that that allocation will be more than adequate for the matters in hand, and I hope that the House will see the need to carry the motion tonight.

8.44 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: The reason for opposition to a guillotine motion is the relative helplessness of the House. It is difficult to control the Executive, and in many ways time is the only effective weapon in the hands of the Opposition. The argument, hypocrisy and double talk which are used to justify opposition to a guillotine are advanced to hide the fact that the motion is depriving an Opposition of its most effective method of opposing a Bill. If we acknowledge that fact, we shall have a much more realistic debate on the subject.
I favour devolution but I take a different view of it from most people. I

regard devolution as one aspect, and one aspect only, of a major underlying debate which is taking place in this country which will lead slowly but surely to a new constitutional settlement. Our adherence to the European Community is another aspect of this. The very matter upon which I have already touched, the helplessness of Members of this House in relation to the Executive and the dictatorship of the Executive within this parliamentary system of ours, is yet another aspect of it. We have heard all these views articulated in one way or another this evening.
I was quite struck by the speech of the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes). At times I felt like saying "Lift up your heart. Doomsday is not quite around the corner." Nevertheless, he articulated the feeling that constitutional things in this country are changing, and he was uncertain whether there was sufficient control of this.
It seems to me that this debate, therefore, is an early aspect of the major debate which will end in some kind of settlement in the way I have suggested. In fact, Lord Hailsham, in a number of lectures, and Lord Scarman have dwelt upon the same matters in a different connection, in relation, for example, to the necessity for a written constitution, a Bill of Rights, and so on. I think that we shall be driven inexorably in the direction of a federal system of government in this country, because it is the only way to make sure that we have both the unity of the United Kingdom preserved and a fair balance among the English regions, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
But the matter that we are debating tonight is a simple issue. It is whether there should be a timetable motion for this Bill. I would entirely agree with the Government that the appropriate time to introduce a timetable motion is at the commencement of a Bill, immediately after the Second Reading. I have so often been in the House when a timetable motion is introduced late on. I remember one night when hon. Members trooped to the Lobbies all night voting on very important aspects of a most important Bill on industrial relations which had not been


debated at all. That was because a timetable was introduced at a very late stage in the proceedings on the Bill.
Therefore, I think that if any Government have a serious intention with regard to their legislation, and if that legislation is controversial—as this Bill undoubtedly is—they must bring in a timetable motion. In many legislatures, for example the Canadian, these timetables are automatic with every Bill. There is a great deal to be said for that. They lead to much more structured debates.
I entirely agree with the point that the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) made. He was right in his suggestion that there would be considerable merit in having debates on the Floor of the House on those clauses which really contain the underlying principles to which the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) referred. But debates on matters of detail, on how the Welsh Assembly would be run, and so on, are of particular interest, perhaps, to Welsh Members, and they could be debated more in Standing Committee. This would in no way deprive the House of Commons as a whole of the ability to consider the basic principles of the Bill.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Will the hon. and learned Member explain why his party voted against the timetable motion on the Scotland and Wales Bill?

Mr. Hooson: As the hon. Member knows, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) and myself voted for that timetable motion.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: What about the rest?

Mr. Hooson: The hon. Gentleman had better ask them. I make no bones about it. I am in favour of a timetable motion on this Bill.
The second reason for a timetable motion is that we would be doing untold damage in Wales if the Bill were to be defeated by means of procedural devices. There are many good aspects of this Bill. On the other hand, there are bad aspects of it. There are certainly very strong arguments to be made both for and against the Bill. The people of Wales could accept the Bill be defeated on its merits, but I do not think that they would stand

for a moment for this Bill being defeated by means of procedural devices. We would be making a great mistake. What we would be doing would be adding to the mythology of Wales if this Bill was not given a proper hearing by the House of Commons.
The third reason why I am in favour of the timetable motion is that I have always believed, contrary perhaps to most members of my party, in referendums on important constitutional issues. There is a world of difference between the constitutional issue and every other issue that comes before this House. It is right that people as a whole in a democracy should be allowed to pronounce on important constitutional changes.
It is an idle exercise in this House to debate what the results of the referendum campaign in Wales will be. At this stage in our proceedings on the European Communities Bill, if people had asked how Wales would have been likely to vote most would have suggested—indeed, they did—that Wales would vote largely against the Bill. In the event, the vote in Wales went the other way.
Most people in Wales have not thought very much about devolution hitherto. This is where I disagree with the hon. Member for Caernarvon. Certainly, articulate politicians and keen party supporters have debated the matter. But it is my view that most of the people of Wales have vague ideas about what devolution involves. In part we are engaging in an education programme.
I hope that we shall have devolution eventually, in a much more acceptable form than the present proposals envisage. I regard these proposals as being merely the first step towards a settlement that will be much more enduring and more acceptable for the people of the United Kingdom as a whole. The referendum provision is a tremendously important safeguard. I believe that the people of Wales should be allowed to pronounce on the issue.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: There has been a great deal of discussion this evening of the merits of the Wales Bill, whereas I understood that we were discussing the merits of the timetable motion. From that it seems clear that even those who believe that the time


allocated is generous still want to debate at great length, some of them at very great length, the merits of the Bill—even on occasions when that is not the business before the House. That would suggest that we need a great deal more time to discuss the Bill in a great deal more detail.
We have had a Second Reading speech from the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley). We have had it several times before but he obviously enjoys it every time he makes it and I see no reason why he should not make that speech many more times if he wants to do so. But he will not have sufficient time to do so in future. We heard earlier today the view of the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), one that he has expressed before and one that is shared by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), who speaks for some of the Liberal Party some of the time. The right hon. Gentleman's view was that all Bills ought to be guillotined from Second Reading.
Let us consider this for a moment. The Lord President would do well to consider it, too. It is the type of view towards which he may have become more attracted as time has gone on, if I have correctly detected the progress in his views towards Parliament over the past few years. If I remember rightly, it is about 330-odd years since the Monarch walked into this place and sat in Mr. Speaker's Chair—

Mr. Hooson: The hon. Member has seen too many films.

Mr. Tebbit: I suggest the hon. and learned Gentleman goes and looks at a copy of the official record.

Mr. Powell: I believe that the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) will find that the Monarch on that occasion sat on the dais on which the Speaker's chair stands but that he did not actually sit in the Speaker's Chair.

Mr. Tebbit: It is an erudite point, but let me add that the House eventually got the Monarch out. Of course, it replaced him by that very bad and evil man Cromwell, who behaved in a much worse way. I know that he is the Lord President's hero but if the Lord President will forgive my saying so, Cromwell behaved in a manner which showed a

growing contempt towards the Parliament that he had once so much admired and which he had once defended.
Bit by bit over recent years the collective monarch has been coming back into this House, and the collective monarch now occupies some 100 or more seats on the Government side of the House. I think that when we consider the use of the guillotine we should remember just how powerful the modern collective monarch is in this House.
The House has given up much too much power, and one of the powers which the Opposition do not have to match that of the Government is the power of propaganda. The Government have a whole machinery of propaganda which they wheel out when they wish to make their case. The Opposition have very few places in which to make their case except here, and if the guillotine is to be used in the manner in which the Lord President is proposing to use it now, that power to argue the case here will be more and more abridged.
These Bills are a classic case of that. It is common ground, I think, between most of us now that during the debates on the Scotland and Wales Bill opinion was changed not only in this House but in the country as a whole. Had there been a truncated debate right from the word go—the Lord President's 28, 30 or perhaps 40 days—I doubt whether the change of opinion could have taken place. Fortunately, the Whips cannot make people outside this House change their opinions. Indeed, they cannot make people in this House change their opinions, although they can make them change their votes, unless the hon. Members concerned have the courage which that small minority of Labour Members have shown in these past few days.
The Lord President should remember, when he makes his case about this matter, that one day in this House the boot will be on the other foot—indeed, the "Foot" is going to be on the other Bench —and I imagine that he would not want the precedents which he is setting now to be used against him.
I understood the Lord President to be referring today to the Representation of the People Bill of 1931. It was, of course, to the No. 2 Bill that he was referring, and he might like to know what


happened to that Bill. It had its Second Reading early in 1931. The guillotine motion was introduced on 3rd March 1931, and the Government got their guillotine. The Bill went through the Committee stage and it received its Third Reading, but then it suffered what I might most delicately describe as a trifling electoral accident in October 1931. Those who oppose the Bill that we are debating tonight can take some comfort, I think, from that precedent, and perhaps, even though the Government get their guillotine motion—

Mr. Foot: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also withdraw and apologise for the slur which he cast on me earlier in the day. He suggested that I had referred improperly to the use of the guillotine in that Bill. I had not in fact done so.

Mr. Tebbit: I beg the Lord President's pardon on this matter. I am not quite

sure what slur he meant. Earlier in the day I suggested that I could not find what I understood him to have referred to as the 1931 Act. But as for the way in which the guillotine was used on it, I made no comment, and I think that the Lord President will find that that is so. But I am happy if the precedent set in 1931 is followed right the way through to the end, including the events in October of that year.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. Before I call the next hon. Member in the debate, I remind the House that there are 25 minutes left before the winding-up speeches begin. A considerable number of hon. Members still desire to speak. It is in their own interests if they curtail their speeches to some extent in order to accommodate others.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Roy Hughes: I shall be very brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I have great respect for the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) but I was a little amazed by some of his opening remarks. He spoke of the Government muzzling Welsh Members, yet immense tolerance has been shown towards them. I do not know how much he has participated in these debates, but, far from the Government laying down the law on the issue, the request for a pledge in the manifesto came in the first place from Welsh Members.

Mr. Maude: Yes, I am sure that that is so of the pro-devolutionists, but I said that the Government were muzzling Labour Members who disapproved of the Bill, those who were likely to drag the proceedings out. I said that it was those Members rather than a fractious Opposition that the Government were trying to muzzle.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. The Government acted on a manifesto promise based on a unanimous decision of Welsh Labour Members.

Mr. Maude: What?

Mr. Hughes: This is factual. I can give the hon. Gentleman chapter and verse. It was done after endless discussion. I have repeated this argument many times and it has never been refuted.
On Monday there was a majority of 44 for the Second Reading of the Scotland Bill. Yesterday we had another convincing majority—33—for the Wales Bill.

Mr. Maude: Not so convincing.

Mr. Hughes: I agree that the guillotine must be used very sparingly, but I conclude that on this issue it has become necessary, particularly since, as I hope it will, when the legislation goes through we can go forward to the people of Scotland and Wales, who will then themselves be able to decide the issue. I am rather dubious about referendums in general, however, particularly after the one on the Common Market issue.
The guillotine motion on the Scotland Bill has gone through by the convincing majority of 26. The greatest gift to nationalism in Wales at this time would be to give this legislation to Scotland but deny it to Wales. I presume that the Conservative Opposition want to curtail nationalism in Wales as much as possible, but if they pursue the attitude that they seem to be taking, it will be a gift to and encourage nationalism in Wales.

Mr. Tebbit: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman can give an opinion about what the passage of these Bills for Scotland and Wales will do to the people of England.

Mr. Hughes: I am speaking on a very limited guillotine motion. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's question is strictly relevant to our discussion, although I appreciate that he is quite an expert on Welsh affairs.
When we consider the time which has been allocated, I think that 11 days is quite generous. I am concerned as a Welsh Member to learn that Scotland is being given preference. However, we have to face reality. It is a different ball game altogether from that in Scotland.
Nevertheless, I feel that the provisions contained in the Wales Bill meet the needs of the people of Wales and that the Government are sincere in their endeavour to maintain the essential unity of the United Kingdom. In doing that they have my full support.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. Esmond Bulmer: I want briefly to return to the English dimension, because in my view it is one of the more important reasons for opposing this guillotine. I do not think that the timetable allows the English dimension to be explored properly, and I shall develop that theme later in my remarks.
Naturally, I have some reservation about entering what appears to be a Welsh debate. However, I am no stranger to Wales. When I get up in the morning, I look across to the Black Mountains and the Radnor Forest. The area can sometimes look bleak and inhospitable. In that it resembles the Government Benches—almost empty, peopled by a few sheep and some hardy souls who are prepared to go their own way.
On our side of the fence for centuries we fought to keep out the Welsh. Until the middle of the fifteenth century, a Welshman found in the city of Hereford was liable to summary execution. However, Owen Tudor changed all that, and his son was able to give away a bit of monastery land to seal the new accord. For hundreds of years now we have accepted the Welsh, and the Welsh settlement has stood. However, because we are such close neighbours, we on the English side understand some of the fragility of the situation that might be created by the Government's proposals, and we understand clearly the need for proper time to consider them.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) made another of the most important points. Our constitutional arrangements are very much in the melting pot. With direct elections to the European Parliament and, perhaps, reform of the House of Lords and different regional arrangements likely to be forthcoming, I cannot believe that this measure has the priority that the Government think it has.
If the Welsh Assembly were to be successful, the English regions would want to follow—and why not? They are just as entitled to the same benefits. I do not think that they would want regional offices of the NEB, but there is no doubt that they would want some of the more important powers. However, I do not think that anyone on the English side has the stomach for further reform of local government for the time being, although clearly there is a good case to be made for removing some of the duplication that exists currently between the counties and the districts.
On the other hand, if the Welsh Assembly were to fail, we should be in a very difficult position, and that is one of the most important reasons for ensuring that the Bill is examined properly. There are those on the Welsh side who wish to see Wales as a separate country and will do all that they can to exploit the differences.
The Government have presented to both Scotland and Wales measures which are food and drink to the nationalists in the sense that they can demand this, that, or the other, but do not have to intro-

duce the taxation to pay for all their dreams. So we understand that there is the possibility of conflict and no one can say what may follow from that.
To the Welsh nationalists and the Leader of the House I would say that we on the English side of the fence have put up with a great deal on behalf of Wales for some time. I receive my telephone bill in Welsh—

Mr. D. E. Thomas: It is not just in Welsh; it is in English too. It is bilingual.

Mr. Bulmer: But it is in Welsh, and to me that is double Dutch—not Dutch, but doubled, usually. Certainly when we in England look at the rate support grant in Wales we feel discriminated against. Anybody who has lived on the English side of the border has seen his rates go up dramatically while those on the Welsh side have not. In many other fields as well the Government's gravy train has gone to the Welsh side while we on the English side have seen nothing of it. The Leominster District Council looks across at Brecon and Radnor and feels that the system is weighted in favour of Wales.

Mr. Roderick: Would the hon. Member care to comment on water charges in this context?

Mr. Bulmer: On another occasion, perhaps. There is very real feeling among people in my constituency that the Welsh are getting an extremely good deal at the moment. If they are to be reminded of all the ills besetting them, such as lack of jobs and inflation caused by this Labour Government, they will remember, too, that Labour Governments are always returned by the Scots and the Welsh. No wonder they are not happy to be reminded of the over-representation of the Scots and Welsh.
I warn the Government and the Welsh nationalists not to try the English too hard. They should all understand the English dimension. If the Lord President will not give time to debate the issue properly, no doubt it will be debated more fully in another place. No doubt the Lord President will then wish to go to his constituents and remind them of how the Dukes of Omnium, Gatherum and Dorset have combined to frustrate the will of the Welsh people. No doubt


he will enjoy fighting an election discussing any issue other than the one before the House, and he will call for a different set of constitutional arrangements.
I feel that the English dimension has not been explored. Many on the English side of the fence have watched with great concern as this measure has come before the House. They feel that the Welsh people are being taken down a dark stairway by the Leader of the House, without him or us fully understanding where it may lead.

9.13 p.m.

Mr. Leo Abse: The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) made the position clear in his rather tetchy contribution this evening. He said that he was not sure whether the people of Wales wanted devolution and that uncertainty existed because of things that had been said on television. These, he made clear, were misleading the people of Wales. That is why, we understand, we are being presented with a guillotine motion tonight—because it is the Government's intention that the Bill shall go through. Although the intention should be that the Welsh people should understand the measure, we are to be gagged. Nevertheless, the opinions we express will find such resonance in Wales that we shall have a situation in which the Welsh people will understand more and more what the issue is about. All this will come about because we have had the opportunity and the time to debate the issues inside the House.
I am not surprised that, fearing the consequences of open debate, and the sanctions of the Bill being properly scrutinised, the Government now insist that we should have a truncated debate —one that is so contained—that it is not possible for every individual issue to be ventilated in a way to ensure that it will be understood and will be in the best interests of the people of Wales.
We are, in effect, debating whether Wales should have the right to understand what is going on and to assess the situation. So fearful are the Government that the people of Wales may understand the situation that Ministers do not even wish to see what criticisms will in due course appear on the Amendment Paper. They are immediately plunging in in an

endeavour to contain the situation, because they know that information and understanding will lead to a complete rejection of the Bill by the Welsh people.
No Bill becomes an Act until it has passed through many stages, and no parliamentarian worthy of the name ever believes at any stage that it is impossible to defeat a Bill. Therefore, I say to those many people inside the Labour Party in Wales who have written to me in such encouraging tones from the ends of the Principality, and also to those in the many constituencies of Wales who in the interests of Wales are thoroughly opposed to the Bill, that the Bill will continue to be opposed at each stage so that the people of Wales will be able to see how inimical, retrograde and contrary it is to the needs of Wales.
My right hon. Friend the Lord President said that there was ample time for consideration of the Bill, although he does not yet know which issues are likely to be raised when we proceed. It may be that the eventual issue will be decided as a result of the referendum which we have wrested from the Government—a referendum given reluctantly, under pressure, and because there was sufficient will in the House to achieve it. That referendum, if reached, will contain a question. The people of Wales, whether they live in Ebbw Vale or Pontypool, will want to understand the issue, and the test of the Government's sincerity lies in their readiness genuinely to go into these matters in Committee. That will depend above everything else on the issue of the referendum.
Will the Lord President explain why there should be any preamble to the question? Is it seriously believed that sophisticated, politically mature people such as the Welsh will not know the issue at stake when they vote? Do the Government believe that a long preamble is required before the people of Wales can answer the question? Let the question be put without any attempt being made to deceive. If it goes forward in this form, the people of Wales will be right to believe that there are those who fear debate, because that is being demonstrated by the guillotine motion. Those who fear debate are endeavouring to get their way by cheating. The public will have a right to believe that that is the case. Not only do the Government want


to smother the issues, but they do not even want the particular issue to be put squarely to the people of Wales for their own decision.
The hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps) said that this was a triumph for the Executive because 13 Labour Members had been persuaded to go into the Lobbies against their will. As a consequence, further discussion will be gagged. That was his view and he explained and illustrated it through his contact with Wales. The Whips had greater wisdom than to approach me, and I certainly did not have the whisky that my hon. Friend enjoyed.
This is not a triumph for the Executive but, in a sense, a defeat for Parliament because, of course, cynicism spreads abroad when hon. Members who hold and express one view act in another way. If hon. Members are reduced to being Lobby fodder, that does not raise outside opinion of this House. Therefore what has happened today and the fact that it is likely to happen again means that if the Bill goes forward not only the sovereignty of Parliament but also the status of individual hon. Members and the collective status of the House will be undermined.
This is a sad occasion for me, as, indeed, it is for many of my hon. Friends who share my view. Wales can be certain that we shall fight and that if it comes to a referendum we shall continue to fight. We have confidence that we shall have a response from the people of Wales who know that this is an ill-thought-out Bill that is a complete capitulation to the most regressive Chauvinism and a step backwards into the nineteenth century. In some respects, as we have heard, there have been racial overtones in this debate that go back to even more primitive tribalism. We shall continue to fight, and, in the end Wales will make up its mind and repudiate the Bill—or the Act, if it is passed.

9.22 p.m.

Mr. A. P. Costain: Whatever his view, no one can deny that the guillotine makes it much easier for the Government to put a Bill through. I therefore found an extraordinary logic in the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery

(Mr. Hooson). He admitted that the Bill was unsatisfactory, but he went on to say that he would vote for the guillotine. Anyone of experience can appreciate that with the guillotine the Government have the power to reject any amendments and there is no way the Opposition can force the Government to accept proposals.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) made accusations against my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner). I do not know whether he advised my hon. Friend that he was going to make those statements.
I have no recollection of having been approached by any hon. Member and asked to keep the debate going. I can assure the House that I tried to speak yesterday and was unsuccessful.
One of the most important features of the Committee stage is that there will be a referendum to follow. I found it quite extraordinary that hon. Members who have been in the House for a great number of years were able to stand up and say that they could not make up their minds and that we should therefore have a referendum to let other people make them up for us. However, if we are to have a referendum we must be sure that the facts are placed before those who will vote. The only opportunity that we should have for putting the facts across in the House would be in Committee where hon. Members campaigning one way or the other can put the evidence before the electors.
I wonder why during the whole of the debate nobody has referred to what will happen in the referendum. We all know the power that the Government have in a referendum. They have the power of propaganda. Will the Leader of the House assure us that there will be equal opportunities and expenses allowed in the referendum for both sides? Otherwise it will be an unfair debate. I shall conclude now because I have been informed that the winding-up speeches are due to start at 9.25 p.m.

9.25 p.m.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Whether the Government like it or not, they are making history because, as far as I am aware, never before in the history of Parliament has there been a Second Reading of a constitutional Bill followed


by a timetable motion on the same Bill within 24 hours. I have scoured the past for precedents but can find none.
The Lord President once described the guillotine as the last resort of a Government. In the case of the Wales Bill, it is the first resort of the Government. No time has yet been spent on the Bill in Committee.
The Government dare not open the Bill to argument. They are running away from the argument because they cannot win it. That is why they are introducing a guillotine so peremptorily and with such indecent haste. I do not know whether it is possible to bring the guillotine into worse disrepute than it is in already, but the Government are clearly doing their best to add to the odium that the House rightly feels for such motions, especially in relation to constitutional Bills.
I return to the Lord President's definition of a guillotine. He said:
The guillotine is the last resort of a Government who know that they cannot get the full-hearted consent of Parliament but are determined to have their way in any case."— [Official Report, 2nd May 1972; Vol. 836, c. 235.]
The motion before us meets that definition in every particular, as the Lord President knows. There is no full-hearted consent for the Bill and the Government are determined to have their way. The Lord President has made clear that what he wants is "My Bill, right or wrong". He does not have to have it. The life of the Government is not at stake and there is no overwhelming demand for the Bill in Wales or the country at large.
Some of the consents and abstentions declared on Second Reading were backed by speeches that revealed nothing but contempt for the Bill. I hope that, for the future peace of their political consciences, those hon. Members, despite the heavy pressures put upon them from within the House and outside, will find their way clear to vote against this motion whatever they may have done on Second Reading. I need hardly remind them that their criticisms have extensive public support in Wales. The last indication that I have had of feeling in Wales is a poll taken as late as March this year that made clear that 53 per cent. of the people interviewed were against the Government's proposals.
The guillotine is the last resort of the Government, but it is also the last resort of hon. Members who oppose the Bill. It is a two-edged guillotine and I hope that hon. Members who are opposed to the contents of the Bill will use their edge of the guillotine. Bearing in mind that if the Bill goes through there will be a referendum. I am surprised that the Government have resorted to a guillotine so quickly. They will have to explain why they have to stifle discussion on the Bill in this place. I hope that the Lord President is not offended by that expression and that he finds it preferable to the word "gagged", to which he referred this afternoon.
The Government will have to explain to the people of Wales why they have to decapitate the opposition with the guillotine when so much of the opposition came from their own Back Benches. I can foresee some embarrassing moments on public platforms. The Government probably think that the public will not understand our procedures and curious jargon, but they cannot fail to understand that the guillotine procedure is alien to the spirit of free discussion and with the words on the ballot paper with which the electorate will be faced and to which reference has been made by the hon. Members for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) and Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), which are supposed to be the outcome of our parliamentary discussions. In fact, they will be the outcome of a rough parliamentary deal.
The voters will be suspicious of what they are being asked to approve, and rightly so. However, it will never come to that if those who have a genuine distrust of the Bill as it stands have the courage of their convictions and fulfil their duty to ensure that the Wales Bill is acceptable to them before the electorate is asked whether it wants the Bill's provisions to be put into effect. I know that it is easier said than done, but the fact that the Bill provides for a referendum does not absolve Members from the duty to ensure that its provisions are as acceptable as they can make them. Most of us are agreed that it would be a betrayal of public trust to think otherwise.
I believe that it would be a betrayal of trust, too, wilfully to allow the Government to deprive the House of the time that it requires to make the Bill acceptable in every respect. The right hon.
Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) was right to describe the curtailment of debate even before it has begun as the death of this institution.
As we heard on Second Reading, the Government have made major changes in the Bill since it was first presented as part of the Scotland and Wales Bill. As the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Evans) said on Monday, the changes would not have been made had it not been for the debates that we had earlier this year. That is where the arguments of the Leader of the Liberal Party, the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) fell down. The Liberals voted against the guillotine in February and propose—with certain exceptions I understand—to vote for it tonight on the ground that changes have been made in the Bill's provisions. How do they know that more changes might not be made with free debate, changes that are in accord with Liberal wishes? They seem to be giving up the fight too easily.
There is still a great deal of dissatisfaction with the Bill and the principles behind it. I am bound to say that last night I thought that the Lord President was making a little headway in explaining these principles to us in answering the West Lothian question, or at least reconciling the House to the impossibility of solving the conundrum. However, the right hon. Gentleman needs more time than he has allowed himself in the timetable motion. Why is he in such a hurry? It is because he still believes, as he did on 22nd February, that it would be dangerous—that is his word and not mine—to delay the passage of the Wales Bill until it has been fully considered by the House. Is he genuinely fearful of the reaction in Wales if the motion is defeated? I cannot believe it. Thousands of people in Wales would be relieved if it were defeated.
The right hon. Gentleman's basic defence is that he has been generous in his allocation of time. The Bill, which has 84 clauses and 12 schedules, is to be disposed of in 11 days. The Scotland Bill, with 83 clauses and 17 schedules, is to have 17 days. Why this difference when the Bills are nearly the same length? The Scotland Bill has 89 pages and the Welsh Bill 85. Does that four-page difference

warrant an extra six days for the Scotland Bill?
The Minister of State's explanation, as supplemented by the Lord President, was not very satisfactory. To anticipate that discussion of underlying principles will have taken place on the Scotland Bill and that further discussion will be unnecessary when it comes to the Wales Bill is presumptuous, to say the least. I do not think that any Welsh hon. Members, be they for or against the Bill or for or against the motion, can approve of this difference in the allocation of time between the two Bills.
The total allocation of time for the two separate Bills is less than we should have had for the Scotland and Wales Bill had the timetable motion for that Bill been carried. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman is not being as generous as he would have us believe. I suppose that he must show the House that rebellion against the Government's will does not pay. Presumably that is why we are having less time this time round.
The Lord President has a great reputation as a parliamentarian. Tribute has been paid to it, but it has been tarnished in his latter days. He has fought too often on both sides when great principles have been at stake. The very word "parliamentarian" is taking on a somewhat sinister meaning the longer the right hon. Gentleman bears the title.
This timetable motion is unprecedented in that it was placed before the House within hours of the Second Reading of a constitutional Bill, a Bill that affects the future of the people of Wales and the unity of the United Kingdom. To say that it does not affect that unity is a matter of opinion, as I think even the Lord President appeared to be conceding this afternoon. It is not a matter of fact.
The motion is also unprecedented in that it relates to a Bill which depends upon a referendum for its provisions to be put into effect. To curtail discussion of the Bill in those circumstances is a dereliction of duty if not a betrayal by the Government of the public's trust in Parliament.
I urge not only my right hon. and hon. Friends but hon. Members in all parts of the House who dislike the Bill and its


contents and who distrust the Government's method of proceeding utterly to reject the motion.

9.39 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): The hon. Member for Stratford-upon-Avon (Mr. Maude), who spoke first from the Opposition Front Bench, spoke in somewhat peculiar terms, particularly in the opening of a debate on a timetable motion. The hon. Gentleman's wish will not be satisfied. He made a singular attack upon us in making his objections to the motion. The hon. Gentleman said that he was not questioning the time that the Government were making available. My guess is that this must be the first timetable motion in history proposed by any Government to be greeted with such a blistering attack as that by the Opposition—and yet it must be the first timetable motion in history not to be criticised on the ground of time by the spokesman for the official Opposition.

Mr. Maude: I did not say that I was not questioning the total allocation of time I said that we would wait for the Business Committee to see how the time allocated would work out.

Mr. Foot: That is a pretty mild attack, too. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the sense of co-operation with which he will approach the Business Committee. I am sure that we shall make speedy progress. I assure him that we shall do everything in our power to meet the representations that he and others will no doubt make when we have the Business Committee.
I should like to reply at once to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) on the subject of the referendum and the proposed preamble to the referendum which is included in the Bill. I should have thought that, from what I said yesterday and when we had fuller debates on the subject in the last Session, Members on both sides, whatever criticisms they might have of the rest of the Bill—I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool is irreconcilable on that subject—would agree that I have gone out of my way to insist that, as a House of Commons, we should do our best to try to ensure that we get the question or

questions in the referendum presented in as fair a way as possible to as large a number of Members as possible. I did not say that we should be able to get unanimity. I thought that that might be somewhat ambitious. But it is my aim and that of the Government to have the question or questions framed and presented in a manner which is regarded as fair by all shades of opinion. I include my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool in those various shades of opinion.
Inevitably, difficulties must arise in any referendum. I agree that we must seek to mitigate those difficulties by getting as widespread an acceptance as possible that the question or questions and the preamble are fair. If there are criticisms of the preamble, we are prepared to look at it afresh to see whether we can overcome them.
In the face of that assurance, which I give again now, although I have given it on previous occasions, I think that it is wrong for my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool to suggest that there is any intention whatsoever on my part or on the Government's part to cheat the people of Wales. We want the question or questions to be put to them in as fair a way as possible. I repudiate any suggestion of cheating. Indeed, in my opinion, the way to cheat the people of Wales would be for the Labour Party to abandon the undertakings that it has given over the years. I shall come back to that point a little later.

Mr. Tebbit: rose—

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman has already displayed such a lapse in his historical researches that he must not complain if I refer to some of these previous events.
I think that I should try to reply to the appeal made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). Even though he made it in the previous debate, it is still apposite to the debate on this second motion. The right hon. Gentleman recalled some of the debates in this House during the passage, or non-passage, of the Parliament (No. 2) Bill in the 1968 Parliament. It is true, as he said, that it was the debates in Committee which killed that Bill. The right hon. Gentleman, recalling those occasions, emphasised that pretty well everybody now would agree how wise it was that that


Bill was consigned to oblivion, and asked whether we could revive those happy days and events and apply them to this Bill.
Of course, there are many serious distinctions between those events and the events here today. The right hon. Member for Down, South argues that he wants another three, four or 10 days in which we might renew the open-ended debate that we had on the Scotland and Wales Bill in the last Session. He is hopeful that if that happened the Bill would be killed. I understand his desire, but there is a sharp distinction in my judgment, and in that of the Labour Party, between then and now.
The right hon. Gentleman never minds an hon. Member referring to his party associations. He knows how deep those associations must be. Certainly from the Labour Party's point of view there is a sharp distinction between the measure presented by the Labour Party on so-called House of Lords reform and this measure. That sharp distinction is that the measure for devolution for both Scotland and Wales figured prominently in the manifesto of our party. The measures were firmly part of the programme which we presented to the electorate. If that had not been the case they would never have been presented in this form to the House.
That did not happen about House of Lords reform. That proposal never figured in any manifesto. If anything, it was contrary to the policy of the Labour Party. At that time our policy was the abolition of the House of Lords. I am happy to say that that policy has been restored into our programme. Perhaps that proposition is even more topical than we suppose.
I am not seeking to pin a charge on the right hon. Gentleman in this respect. He would never suggest invoking the power of the House of Lords but there are others who might, such as the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Bulmer), who echoed the sentiments of the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym). He suggested that if we were to have a timetable in this House the powers of the House of Lords might have to be invoked to remedy some of the deficiencies that might arise from the legislation.
The right hon. Gentleman should be more careful about such matters because he was part of the conspiracy—not to use too tame a word—whereby the House of Lords' powers were not invoked to revise two major Bills which he helped to shepherd through the House. In the case of the Industrial Relations Act 1971 the power of the House of Lords was not invoked to ensure that there was proper revision. The European Communities Act went through the Lords without a single comma being changed.
I say to the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire that all those leaders of the Conservative Party who engaged in that operation between 1971 and 1974 have certainly forfeited any claim to say that they have a right to call upon the other place to revise these measures. In the case where there was a true claim for revision they made no efforts to ensure that anything of the sort happened. They did worse. They made every effort they could to ensure that no revision whatsoever should take place.
I say to the right hon. Gentleman that we here in this House must settle these questions. We have a right to settle them and we believe that it is necessary not only to have a right to debate them but to have the right to settle them in this House. We have to combine in this democratic Assembly, if it is to be effective, the right to argue with the power to decide, and we must do these two things together. If we were to say that we shall insist upon the one and abandon the other we would be undermining the true democratic strength of this House.

Mr. Pym: The right hon. Gentleman has reserved unto himself the right to choose which measures the other place should and should not revise. He has criticised it for revising some measures and is denying it the right to revise the measures that may come through this House under the guillotine. It is wrong for him to do that. That is not the way in which he should exercise his parliamentary responsibilities.

Mr. Foot: The Opposition had better be careful about how they use their powers here in association with their colleagues in another place. They should take care in those circumstances about trying to interfere with the decisions of this House, especially when the measures


going through This House concern the democratic rights of the British people as a whole.

Mr. Pym: The Leader of the House last week sought to accuse me quite falsely of threatening the use of the House of Lords. Is he not now positively threatening the House of Lords himself?

Mr. Foot: Everybody will be able to see, when the General Election comes, what my party proposes for dealing with the House of Lords. Our proposals will be in the open manifesto just as we proposed the Bills now before us in the manifesto. Our proposals will be there for people to see and for people to argue about. But what is not available for the House and the country to see is the arrangement between the official Conservative Front Bench and the Conservative majority in the House of Lords which goes silent when there are Conservative Administrations, but which invokes its power when a Labour Government comes into office.
Nothing could be more dangerous than for the Conservative Party to try to invoke again those powers of the House of Lords, particularly to deal with a measure which is strengthening democratic rights in Scotland and Wales.

Mr. Pym: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the contents of his party's manifesto are more important than Parliament? Does he think it right to threaten his hon. Friends with the warning that if a proposal is in the manifesto they must support it and Parliament can go to blazes? That is not the attitude that should be adopted by a parliamentarian such as the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Foot: I did not say anything of the sort. [HON. MEMBERS: "You implied it."] What I certainly implied, and what I underline and repeat, is that when undertakings and obligations have been entered into by a great political party to the people of the country on major questions of constitutional change, when those proposals have been put in the manifesto, it is that party's business to carry them through both this House and the other place.
If the other place, which is not elected by anybody, were to say after we had passed the Bill that it would not accept

it because it intended backing the attitude of the Conservative Opposition in the Commons, a highly dangerous constitutional position would be created. I hope that the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, who was the first to issue threats in connection with this matter, will, in the course of the lengthy discussions that we shall have on this Bill in Committee, withdraw what he said a week or two ago.

Mr. Tebbit: The right hon. Gentleman was rather keen on pointing out that the Treaty of Accession had not been amended in any way by the House of Lords. Is he still intent, as he was in those days, on amending the treaty?

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman has got his history wrong again. It was not the Treaty of Accession but the European Communities Act. As I have said before in the House, I believe that it may well be that the only way in which this House can restore the proper control over its affairs that it should have is to seek some amendment of that measure. I have always held that view. I have stated it in the House. It is because I have argued that and held that view that I shall certainly not take instruction from Opposition Members, least of all the hon. Member for Chingford, on the question how we are to retain supremacy in the House of Commons.

Mr. Russell Johnston: rose—

Mr. Foot: I must continue, because the debate will be ending in a few minutes.
Let me say to the right hon. Member for Down, South that in the debate that we had yesterday I was hoping to quote from the masterly book that he has produced on the subject of Joseph Chamberlain. I certainly commend it to every hon. Member who is concerned with the issues that we shall be debating all through our lengthy Committee stage, because the right hon. Gentleman discusses in great detail in that book the whole question of federalism and the whole question how we may seek to overcome many of the problems and difficulties that we have been discussing in these debates. However, I take a much more optimistic view of these matters than does the right hon. Gentleman, or than did his hero—not that I think that he


holds his hero aloft to the end of the book —because at the same time as those discussions were going through, an even greater man than Joseph Chamberlain said,
To maintain the supremacy of the Crown…and all the authority of Parliament necessary for the conservation of that unity, is the first duty of every representative of the people. Subject to this governing principle, every grant to portions of the country of enlarged powers for the management of their own affairs is, in my view, not a source of danger, but a means of averting it, and is in the nature of a new guarantee for increased cohesion, happiness and strength.
It is in that sense that we introduce these devolution measures. Those were the words of Gladstone then. If they had been heeded, many of the tragedies that occurred could have been averted. I hope that the House of Commons will not make the same mistake about Scotland and Wales as it made about Ireland generations ago. I certainly hope to ensure that the House of Lords will not play the tragically disastrous part that it played on that occasion.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. David Price: The Leader of the House cannot get away with that quotation in relation to the two Bills that we have been discussing today. For the Wales Bill, there is no comparability—and the right hon. Gentleman knows it—between what Mr. Gladstone brought forward in his two Government of Ireland Bills and what is being brought forward in the Scotland Bill and the Wales Bill, the guillotine of the latter of which we are now discussing. Surely the right hon. Gentleman is a better historian than to try that on the House. I explained to the House on Monday that the basic question was that of devolving taxing powers from this House. That was the guts of what Mr. Gladstone was putting forward.
It is no good the Government Deputy Chief Whip making faces at me. Having caught Mr. Speaker's eye, I am entitled to speak. It is no good him waving his hand at me.
At an earlier stage today, the Leader of the House took up my motion on the Order Paper criticising the Leader of the House for not giving enough time for Second Reading. The Leader of the

House will regret that he has not given enough time for Second Reading on either of the two Bills. The reason why the Government find it necessary to bring forward a guillotine motion on the Scotland Bill and now on the Wales Bill, after only one day's debate on Second Reading—

Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household): rose—

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the motion relating to the Wales Bill (Allocation of Time) may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

Question again proposed,

Mr. Price: The Leader of the House comes to the Dispatch Box as Leader of the whole House and not just of the Cabinet. Nowadays he puts on his London Palladium performances and not the great parliamentary performances which we used to see when he was sitting on the Bench below the Gangway.
He referred to guillotines earlier today and named some of the great names of the French Revolution. I see Robespierre in the right hon. Gentleman. From being the great tribune of the people, standing for the liberties of all, he is now stifling free expression in this House. Does he take pleasure in a situation when his hon. Friends behind him speak against Bills and then vote for them? That is something he ought to consider. We are not yet fit to handle our own affairs as Members of this House and ought not to consider devolving power until we run those affairs rather better.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has made some trenchant comments during these past two or three days of debate. When I addressed the House on Monday I said that we must consider reforming our own procedures and getting our local government right before we proceeded with guillotine measures on spurious devolution legislation. I believe that that is the general will of the House, although it is not being expressed in the vote.
This is a serious matter. The Government should have given rather longer on Second Reading for the two devolution Bills—and the right hon. Gentleman knows by my name that I have a little claim to speak on Welsh matters although I sit for an English seat. One thing is clear. It is that the people of Wales, when the time comes, will not thank the right hon. Gentleman for forcing this

Division No. 10]
AYES
[10.03 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Hunter, Adam


Anderson, Donald
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dempsey, James
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Armstrong, Ernest
Doig, Peter
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Ashley, Jack
Dormand, J. D.
Janner, Greville


Ashton, Joe
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Jeger, Mrs Lena


Atkinson, Norman
Dunn, James A.
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dunnett, Jack
John, Brynmor


Bain, Mrs. Margaret
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Eadie, Alex
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Edge, Geoff
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Bates, Alf
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Bean, R. E.
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Beith, A. J.
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
English, Michael
Judd, Frank


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Ennals, Rt Hon David
Kaufman, Gerald


Bidwell, Sydney
Evans,Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Kelley, Richard


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Kerr, Russell


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Evans, John (Newton)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Boardman, H.
Ewing. Harry (Stirling)
Kinnock, Neil


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Lambie. David


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Faulds, Andrew
Lamborn, Harry


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Lamond, James


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Bradley, Tom
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Lee, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Flannery, Martin
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lever, Rt Hon Harold


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Ford, Ben
Lipton, Marcus


Buchan, Norman
Forrester, John
Litterick, Tom


Buchanan, Richard
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Loyden, Eddie


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Luard, Evan


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Freud, Clement
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Campbell, lan
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
McCartney, Hugh


Canavan, Dennis
George, Bruce
MacCormick, lain


Cant, R. B.
Gilbert, Dr John
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Carmichael, Neil
Ginsburg, David
McElhone, Frank


Carter, Ray
Golding, John
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Gould, Bryan
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Cartwright, John
Gourlay, Harry
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Graham, Ted
Mackintosh, John P.


Clemitson, Ivor
Grant, John (Isington C)
Maclennan, Robert


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Cohen, Stanley
Grocott, Bruce
McNamara, Kevin


Coleman, Donald
Hardy, Peter
Madden, Max


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Magee, Bryan


Concannon, J. D.
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Mahon, Simon


Corbett, Robin
Hatton, Frank
Mallalieu, J. P W.


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Marks, Kenneth


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Crawford, Douglas
Heffer, Eric S.
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Crawshaw, Richard
Henderson, Douglas
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Cronin, John
Hooley, Frank
Maynard, Miss Joan


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Hooson, Emlyn
Meacher, Michael


Cryer, Bob
Horam, John
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Mikardo, Ian


Davidson, Arthur
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Huckfield, Les
Mitchell, Austin


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Molloy, William


Deakins, Eric
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

centrating on the detail when the principle is not yet established.

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. Speaker proceeded to put the Question necessary to dispose of them pursuant to Standing Order No. 44 (Allocation of time to Bills).

Question put: —

The House divided: Ayes 314, measure through the House and con- Noes 287.

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Tomlinson, John


Moyle, Roland
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Tomney, Frank


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Rowlands, Ted
Torney, Tom


Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Sandelson, Neville
Tuck, Raphael


Newens, Stanley
Sedgemore, Brian
Urwin, T. W.


Noble, Mike
Selby, Harry
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Oakes, Gordon
Sever, J.
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Ogden, Eric
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


O'Halloran, Michael
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Orbach, Maurice
Shore, Ht Hon Peter
Ward, Michael


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Watkins, David


Ovenden, John
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Watkinson, John


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Sillars, James
Watt, Hamish


Padley, Walter
Silverman, Julius
Weetch, Ken


Palmer, Arthur
Skinner, Dennis
Weitzman, David


Pardoe, John
Small, William
Wellbeloved, James


Park, George
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Welsh, Andrew


Parker, John
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Parry, Robert
Snape, Peter
White, James (Pollok)


Pavitt, Laurie
Spriggs, Leslie
Whitehead, Phillip


Pendry, Tom
Stallard, A. W.
Whitlock, William


Penhaligon, David
Steel, Rt Hon David
Wigley, Dafydd


Perry, Ernest
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald
Willey, Rt Hon Frederic-


Prescott, John
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Stoddart, David
Williams, Alan Bee (Hornch'ch)


Price, William (Rugby)
Stott, Roger
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Radice, Giles
Strang, Gavin
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Reid, George
Summerskill, Hon Or Shirley
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Richardson, Miss Jo
Swain, Thomas
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Robertson. John (Paisley)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Woodall, Alec


Robinson, Geoffrey
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Woof, Robert


Roderick, Caerwyn
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Rodgers, George (Chorloy)
Thompson, George
Young, David (Bolton E)


Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)



Rooker, J. W.
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Roper, John
Tierney, Sydney
Mr. James Hamilton and


Rose, Paul B.
Tinn, James
 Mr. Joseph Harper.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)


Adley, Robert
Clark, William (Croydon S)
Fry, Peter


Aitken, Jonathan
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.


Alison, Michael
Clegg, Walter
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Cockroft, John
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Arnold, Tom
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Cope, John
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)


Awdry, Daniel
Cormack, Patrick
Glyn, Dr Alan


Baker, Kenneth
Corrie, John
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph


Banks, Robert
Costain, A. P.
Goodhart, Philip


Bell, Ronald
Critchley, Julian
Goodhew, Victor


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Crouch, David
Goodlad, Alastair


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Crowder, F. P.
Gorst, John


Benyon, W.
Cunningham, G. (Islington 3)
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Dalyell, Tam
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)


Biffen, John
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutstord)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Biggs-Davison, John
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Gray, Hamish


Blaker, Peter
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Grieve, Percy


Body, Richard
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Griffiths, Eldon


Boscawen, Hon Rooert
Drayson, Burnaby
Grist, Ian


Bottomley, Peter
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Grylis, Michael


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Dunlop, John
Hall, Sir John


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Durant, Tony
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Bradford, Rev Robert
Dykes, Hugh
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brittan, Leon
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hannam, John


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Elliott, Sir William
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)


Brooke, Peter
Emery, Peter
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss


Brotherton, Michael
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Haselhurst, Alan


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Eyre, Reginald
Hastings, Stephen


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Havers, Pt Hon Sir Michael


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Fairgrieve, Russell
Hawkins, Paul


Buck, Antony
Farr, John
Hayhoe, Barney


Budgen, Nick
Fell, Anthony
Heseltine, Michael


Bulmer, Esmond
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Hicks, Robert


Burden, F. A.
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Higgins, Terrence L.


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Hodgson, Robin


Carlisle, Mark
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Holland, Philip


Carson, John
Fookes, Miss Janet
Hordern, Peter


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Forman, Nigel
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Channon, Paul
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C' f' d)
Howell, David (Guildford)


Churchill, W. S.
Fox, Marcus
Howell, Ralph(North Norfolk)







Hunt, David (Wirral)
Moate, Roger
Scott-Hookins, James


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Molyneaux, James
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Hurd, Douglas
Monro, Hector
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Montgomery, Fergus
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Shepherd, Colin


James, David
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Shersby, Michael


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst' d&amp;W' df' d)
Morgan, Geraint
Silvester, Fred


Jessel, Toby
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Sims. Roger


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Sinclair, Sir George


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Jopling, Michael
Mudd, David
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Joseph, Rt Hon. Sir Keith
Neave, Airey
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Neubert, Michael
Speed, Keith


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Newton, Tony
Spence, John


Kershaw, Anthony
Normanton, Tom
Splcer, Jim (W Dorset)


Kimball, Marcus
Nott, John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Onslow, Cranley
Sproat, lain


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Stainton, Keith


Knight, Mrs Jill
Osborn, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Knox, David
Page, John (Harrow West)
Stanley, John


Lamont, Norman
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Page, Richard (Workington)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Latham, Micnael (Melton)
Paisley, Rev Ian
Stokes, John


Lawrence, Ivan
Parkinson, Cecil
Stradling Thomas, J.


Lawson, Nigel
Pattie, Geoffrey
Tapsell, Peter


Leadbitter, Ted
Percival, Ian
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Phipps, Dr Colin
Tebbit, Norman


Lloyd, Ian
Pink, R. Bonner
Temple-Morris, Peter


Loveridge, John
Powell, Rt Hon J Enoch
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Luce, Richard
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Townsend, Cyril D.


McCrindle, Robert
Prior, Rt Hon James
Trotter, Neville


McCusker, H.
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Macfarlane, Neil
Raison, Timothy
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


MacGregor, John
Rathbone, Tim
Viggers, Peter


MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Wakeham, John


Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Madel, David
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Wall, Patrick


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Rhodes James, R.
Walters, Dennis


Marten, Neil
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Warren, Kenneth


Mates, Michael
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Weatherill, Bernard


Mather, Carol
Ridsdale, Julian
Wells, John


Maude, Angus
Rifkind, Malcolm
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Wiggin, Jerry


Mawby, Ray
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Winterton, Nicholas


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Mayhew, Patrick
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Host, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Younger, Hon George


Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Royle, Sir Anthony



Mills, Peter
Sainsbury, Tim
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Miscampbell, Norman
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Scotf, Nicholas
Mr. Michael Roberts.

Question accordingly agreed to.

HOSPITAL SERVICES (MID-GLAMORGAN)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]

10.21 p.m.

Mr. Ioan Evans: During the last two days the House has been discussing the devolution Bills, and today we have had the guillotine motion. I assure hon. Members that the matter I am raising on the Adjournment is of far greater consequence to my constituents than are the other matters that we have been dealing with today.
Recently, between 5,000 and 8.000 people attended a rally and meeting in Aberdare. On 4th April, during Welsh Question Time, I raised the question of the future of hospital services in the Cynon Valley, particularly the casualty services. At this point I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales—the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones)—who has shown great interest in Welsh constituency matters, but I am very disturbed at the way in which the Welsh Office has dealt with this subject.
In a letter dated 26th April the Under-Secretary said that he had under consideration proposals submitted by the Mid-Glamorgan Area Health Authority for the reorganisation of the health services following the opening of the new Prince Charles Hospital. While the new district general hospital had been welcome as an essential improvement to the total health services in the Cynon Valley, Merthyr and the upper part of the Rhymney Valley district, there had been numerous objections to the proposed changes at the existing hospitals.
The objections had been made by the community health councils, particularly of Merthyr and the Cynon Valley, and local authorities in the area, particularly the Cynon Valley Borough Council, which is the largest borough council concerned in the area. The Cynon Valley Trades Council and other trade union organisations in the valley, particularly the trade unions involved in the reorganisation, also expressed concern.
The Under-Secretary met a deputation which included representatives of the Cynon Valley Community Health Council

supported by my hon Friends the Members for Caerphilly (Mr. Evans), Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) and myself. I realise the difficulty in which the Under-Secretary was put, but I believe that a letter sent out on 26th August by the Secretary of State has added greatly to these difficulties. Definite assurances for the future of the hospital service in the Cynon Valley are now required.
In the letter of 26th August reference is made to the proposal of the Mid-Glamorgan Area Health Authority that the existing St. Tydfil's Hospital at Merthyr and the Aberdare General Hospital should act in supporting roles. In paragraph 7 of the letter reference is made to the desire to have Aberdare General Hospital rather than St. Tydfils designated as the main support hospital. In paragraph 8, however, the letter states that the Secretary of State regrets that he cannot support that desire. It adds that he supports the idea of a developing St. Tydfils in Merthyr as the main support hospital to Prince Charles Hospital.
I wrote to the Secretary of State on 12th October, stating that
The difficulties have been seriously aggravated by the statement from the Welsh Office where reference is made to the Aberdare Hospital having a minor role.
I pointed out that the Prince Charles Hospital is situated in the Merthyr Tydfil area and that to situate the main hospital in the same area was a planning monstrosity.
I also pointed out that the population and the land area of Merthyr and the Cynon Valley are as follows: the population in the Cynon Valley is 69,575, and the area amounts to 45,000 acres, covering 70 square miles; in Merthyr the population is 63,205, less than that in the Cynon Valley, and the area in Merthyr is only 28,000 acres, and covers 43 square miles.
Despite the fact that the Cynon Valley covers a larger population and a larger geographical area, Merthyr has been given not only a major new hospital but a proposed major support hospital. I find that proposal impossible to accept, and it has certainly not been accepted by the people in the Cynon Valley, who have demonstrated in large numbers—namely, 5,000 of them in a march and 8,000 at a rally—showing how deeply they feel at the decision that was taken.
In a letter dated 26th October, the Secretary of State said that there was no difference between the Welsh Office and the Mid-Glamorgan Area Health Authority, but I have received correspondence from that authority stating that it believes that the right way of putting the question has not been dealt with by the Welsh Office.
Today I met representatives of the action committee in the locality, who suggested that the Mountain Ash Hospital should be retained and upgraded to a fully operational community hospital. They stated that Aberdare Hospital should retain surgical facilities, and should have a paediatric ward, a medical ward with an intensive care unit, a full-time casualty officer, a special baby-care unit, and a geriatric unit attached to the day unit. They hoped that the training of pupil nurses would be retained, with full provision for their gaining experience in all fields.
I hope that those suggestions will be considered by the Minister and that this evening I shall be given a definite assurance that Mountain Ash and Aberdare Hospitals, in the Cynon Valley, are to be retained. I hope that my hon. Friend will state categorically—this is the crux of the complaint of the people I represent, who are united in this matter, whether they be members of religious denominations, trade unions or political organisations—that the Aberdare Hospital should be recognised as the main hospital in the Merthyr and Cynon Valley area. We welcome the new hospital facilities that are coming to our area, but if the present situation is not put right, I feel that the people in the area will be let down.
I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give me those assurances. He has been sympathetic on a number of matters in the past, but on this matter the Department has not come out very well. I hope that he will be able to assist me on this occasion.

10.28 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Barry Jones): I am very glad to follow the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans). I am sorry that he feels that in this instance the Department has not given him all he wants. I hope that I can persuade him to the contrarry later in the

debate, because I believe that the Department has acted well.
I want to put on record the fact that I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised this matter, and also the fact that he has been a strong and persistent fighter for his people in the valleys and communities he represents.
Let us be clear about the matter that is before us. I do not think that this question can be limited to the Cynon Valley. The question must be what is the best way to provide hospital services to the Merthyr and Cynon Valley and Rhymney Valley health districts as a whole.
I want to get to the heart of the matter quickly. My hon. Friend has implied that St. Tydfils should not have been chosen as the principal support to Prince Charles Hospital. My hon. Friend has consistently raised that point with me.
St. Tydfils will provide facilities which do not exist in the new hospital—geriatrics, obstetrics and a special-care unit for babies—and as it will form part of a single hospital complex, "principal support" is not a misnomer. The area health authority now sees the rôle of this hospital as complementary to that of Prince Charles Hospital. The Aberdare Hospital will provide surgical, paediatric and maternity services in addition to those at Prince Charles and St. Tydfils Hospitals. It will have 25 children's beds, 30 general surgery beds, 15 trauma and orthopaedic beds, 20 beds for gynaecology and 30 for obstetrics; that is 120 beds in all, and in very active specialties. It is quite wrong, therefore, to speak as if it will not play an important role in providing hospital services in the Cynon Valley; indeed, for acute services it will be the main support hospital to Prince Charles Hospital.
I have seen a recent Press report with statements attributed to the Chairman of the Mid-Glamorgan Area Health Authority, Mr. Jess Warren, which confirmed that there has never been any disagreement between the Welsh Office and the area health authority about what was approved by the Secretary of State over the proposals of the health authority, which were accepted 100 per cent. There is no conflict on this issue. The decision letter reflected what was contained in the health authority's consultative document.

Mr. Ioan Evans: In the letter that went to the Secretary of State from the Mid-Glamorgan Area Health Authority, the authority suggested that there should be two main support hospitals—St. Tydfils and Aberdare. However, in the letter from the Secretary of State that was circulated by the health authoriy it appeared that the Department was selecting Aberdare as opposed to St. Tydfils. The whole purpose of our argument is that if the main hospital is to be Prince Charles we have the right to say that the other main hospital must be Aberdare.

Mr. Jones: I follow that argument and I have said that for acute services Aberdare will be the other main support hospital to Prince Charles Hospital.
Taking a little further the point that my hon. Friend has made, he said that in its decision letter the Welsh Office assigned a rôle to Aberdare Hospital different from that which was proposed by the area health authority. This is a complete misunderstanding. The AHA's proposals were accepted 100 per cent. and there is and has been no conflict. What the chairman said to a deputation earlier this week in no way contradicted that. Nothing is being taken away from Aberdare, and there are no proposals for running down Aberdare Hospital. I have done my research well and I have here the South Wales Echo of Tuesday, 15th November in which there is a picture of a militant-looking Mr. Warren addressing some of the action committee supported by my hon. Friend.
It is said that Prince Charles Hospital should have been built in Aberdare and any future development of the hospital complex should be in Aberdare. We cannot turn back the clock on the Welsh Hospital Board's decision of some 16 years ago. The new hospital is at Gurnos and there can be no question of creating anything like a further district general hospital in the Cynon Valley. Nor would it make medical or financial sense to create a district general hospital complex in two incomplete parts.
My hon. Friend would have liked the special-care baby unit to be sited at Aberdare instead of at St. Tydfils.
Ideally, the special baby-care hospital should be at Prince Charles Hospital. A special-care baby unit requires 24 hour cover by expert and experienced doctors

and nurses. Until such a unit can be added to the Prince Charles Hospital, it is best to locate one in a central position, where it is reasonably convenient for all three valleys. This is why Merthyr has been chosen. A special-care baby unit in Aberdare would not be well placed for the mothers of the Upper Rhymney Valley.
It has been said that children's beds should be retained in Mountain Ash Hospital. Modern policy is to avoid putting a child in hospital if at all possible. If the child must be hospitalised, it must be in an environment and with facilities suitable for the treatment of children. Prince Charles Hospital has a paediatric department with complete scientific back-up services, but some children's beds have been retained in Aberdare because not enough could be provided at Prince Charles. I must accept the medical and nursing advice that there should not be children's beds in Mountain Ash Hospital.
I am answering these points because every one has been made by my hon. Friend in a strong and committed fashion. I take seriously everything that he says and seeks to obtain for the people of his community.
My hon. Friend has suggested that there should be proper casualty facilities at both Merthyr and Aberdare. There is a lot of confused thinking about this. In fact, it is not proposed to take away anything that these hospitals have had in the past. They have a GP casualty service, and this will continue as long as the GPs are willing to provide it. The major accident department at Prince Charles will have 24-hour cover by consultants in all necessary specialities. Medical advice is firmly that this is a better way of providing treatment for accidents and emergencies than multiplying the number of accident units at the expense of providing comprehensive care.
The most insistent demand is that the Secretary of State should pay more attention to the demands of those who claim to represent the Cynon Valley and should change his proposals. Let me say firmly and clearly that the Mid-Glamorgan Health Authority's proposals for the development of hospitals in these districts, as approved by the Secretary of State, will bring about a substantial improvement of the hospital services available to the


people of the Cynon Valley equally with the people of Merthyr and Upper Rhymney Valleys.
Before the area health authority's proposals were approved by the Secretary of State there was the fullest consultation with the public and study of all the implications. I can assure the House—especially my hon. Friend, who is always fighting for his area—that all the points that have been raised since the Secretary of State's final decisions were fully expressed in the process of consultation and were taken into account. I think that my hon. Friend knows that the Prince Charles Hospital will open in a few months' time and that further delay in implementing the health authority's plans would be wasteful.
As for the longer term, proposals for development in the hospital services are the responsibility of the health authority in the first place. Any material change of hospital use must be the subject of the full consultation procedures. Those procedures are safeguards for my hon. Friend and the community that he so ably represents.
I can state positively that there are no proposals for changes of use at Mountain Ash or at Aberdare beyond those already agreed in the authority's consultation document.
I am glad to have had the opportunity to put the record straight on this subject, which is of such close concern to the people of the Cynon Valley. I well understand the feelings that my hon. Friend has so ably represented, but I hope that I can persuade the House that the facts show that the Cynon Valley will be well served by the. Prince Charles Hospital and the new deployment of the Aberdare and St. Tydfils Hospitals.
It is clear to me that the health authorities have a most difficult task not only in making the best possible use of the resources at their disposal but in carrying with them the various and often differing local opinions. In my experience few subjects arouse so much passion in the House as the future of local hospitals, and my hon. Friend has demonstrated much passion to me in the Welsh Office and in the Chamber over the past year or so. Within their limited resources the health authorities have a difficult job of reconciling the provision

of health care to each district with the often competing demands of local feeling and—this is important in South-East Wales—community pride.
I hope that I have shown that the needs of the people are in the forefront of our minds, and that the question at issue is the best way of meeting the needs of the Cynon Valley within the resources that the country can afford. I hope that I have demonstrated the great pains that have been taken by the area health authority and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales to arrive at the best answer to this difficult problem. However, it is not the end of the task. The work of providing health care continues. If they have not done so. I urge all the interested local groups and individuals to take an active interest in the work of their community health councils and to make their feelings and opinions known to them. That is the best and most effective means by which the man in the street, whom my hon. Friend represents, may ensure that his views are known by his health authority, and, equally, that he better understands its work.
It has occurred to me that it is perhaps particularly appropriate that this evening's Adjournment debate should be on a Welsh matter. I do not think it is a bad thing to be reminded that the stuff of politics is concerned at least as much with tending our own gardens, with more than the sweep of national and internations affairs. I think that my hon. Friend has clearly and sympathetically voiced the concern and the anxiety of his constituents.
I am not unaware of the traditional rivalry between the Merthyr Valley and the Cynon Valley, which is expressed on the sports field and elsewhere. I hope that they will be able to concentrate a little more on their common interests and their need for mutual support rather than on their differences. If the total available investment were spread equally between the Merthyr, Cynon and Upper Rhymney Valleys, I do not think that there could be a viable modern hospital capability in any of them. I have found that to be a medical and financial fact.
A new district general hospital costing about £9¼ million and containing 362


beds, with full supporting diagnostic and treatment facilities and out-patients and major accident and emergency departments has been built at Gurnos, just to the north of Merthyr and immediately adjacent to the Heads of the Valleys road. I think that it will start admitting patients early next year.
The opening of the new Prince Charles Hospital will vastly improve the facilities for hospital treatment available to all the people of the district, including Aberdare and Mountain Ash. The new services are worth £2½million a year more than the existing services in the catchment area. A total of 118 additional beds are being made available, and extra staff will be taken on. In the Cynon Valley there are no hospital closures.
The decision to build this hospital was taken by the former Welsh Hospital Board in 1960–61. The intention was to provide a hospital of more than 800 beds covering all major specialties. That was too much for a single building scheme, so the first phase was designed excluding certain specialties and containing rather fewer beds in some other specialties than were needed to serve the whole catchment area. Thus it was known—there was wide publicity—that certain existing hospitals would have to provide facilities for the specialties excluded from the first phase of the new hospital and support in those specialties which were not yet fully provided in the new hospital.
It was also known virtually from the beginning that when the new hospital came into operation there would have to be changes in the use of some hospitals and that some would have to be closed. The difficult question that met the new Mid-Glamorgan Health Authority after reorganisation in 1974 was what changes it should recommend.
I want to say a few words about consultation to my hon. Friend, who until recently had been part of the administra-

tion in the Welsh Office for some years. Succeeding Ministers have always attached the greatest importance to consultation with all bodies and persons affected by proposed closure or change of bed use, and a detailed and exacting programme of consultation, explanation and consideration of comments must be carried out by the area health authorities. This is matched, after the areas take their decisions, by a further period for representation, this time direct to the Secretary of State, and the most careful consideration of all proposals and comments by officials and Ministers. Many of us burned a good deal of midnight oil over this reorganisation plan before it was approved by the Secretary of State.
I want to stress the respective rôles of area health authorities and the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State distributes money, promulgates advice, controls the major building programme and monitors the performance of health authorities, but the area health authority plans and provides health services. It is important to understand who does what. The health authorities must obtain the Secretary of State's approval for certain purposes, but the plans and decisions are initially those of the responsible health authorities.
In July 1975, after a great deal of detailed research and informal consultation, the Mid-Glamorgan Area Health Authority produced a formal consultative paper, which contained 18 foolscap pages of detailed explanation and statistical tables setting out its proposals for reorganisation when the Prince Charles Hospital opened. It sought—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.